Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 → Archive 105

Requested move

Lana (wrestling) to Lana (wrestler). McPhail (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hoax tag team/stables?

User talk:Captain Styles II Jr. has created an article for The Golden Gorgeous Truth (participate in the AfD, even though it's an obvious hoax) and has moved Enzo Amore and Colin Cassady to The SAWFT (professional wrestling). In his summaries, he simply states, "WWE Official The Golden Gorgeous Truth" or "WWE Official The SAWFT". Now, in my mind, these names are completely false. Previously before he moved the Enzo and Cass page, SAWFT was one of the names in the infobox, supported by an unreliable source. After he moved the page, he simply added "The" before "SAWFT" in the box (I reverted his edits but I can't move the article back to its original name). Are there any sources to prove that these names are valid? Are these names actually official names once used by WWE? Sekyaw (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

At Payback , they were announced as Enzo Amore & Colin Cassady. Look at WWE.com I think SWAFT isn't a name, ask for a move. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Sekyaw you are correct as that is not their tag team name never has been.This is not the first questionable edit he has done.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove Online World of Wrestling profiles from External Links

Currently some wrestlers have links to Online World of Wrestling in the external links sections. I've looked through quite a few profiles and they don't seem to offer a unique resource (contrast cagematch and similar, which offer databases of matches, title reigns, etc), it doesn't seem to be particularly well written, or authoritative. Career highlights are what should be in a wikipedia article, and lists of matches seem to be much better as databases (such as cagematch), so I don't think they really add much value to articles. I propose we delete links to the site when included in the external links section (at least where there are other, more reliable sources linked to), and if used as a reference then supported by a more reliable source (where possible). Silverfish (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear!LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Nikki♥311 18:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Prefall 07:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Allons-y CrashUnderride 08:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not big on removing it and leaving nothing in its place, but in cases where there's something more reliable, then let's do it. Sorry. Yup. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Too long, didn't read. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As we seem to have agreement, I'm going to start removing the links, and adding the template I mention above (Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles), which adds links to cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, which seem to be more reliable sources. Silverfish (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

GFW Roster

Hi. I have a dbout. WHat should we do with the List of Global Force Wrestling personnel? A few months ago, GFW looked like a powerful promotion with a good roster. However, it's a (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:NONEUTRAL) joke. If you take a look on GFW events, a few roster wrestlers appear at the events (http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=144773). Also, the roster isn't actualized. Wrestlers who signed with other promotions (doc gallows, karl anderson, the young bucks) still listed as GFW wrestlers. Many others are in a dubius situation (trevor lee, andrew everet, sanada, EVIL)... so, do you think we should delete the article? A lot of independent promotions haven't a roster section. The artice is sourced by an unactualized website and doesn't represent the GFW roster when you see the events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete it. Honestly, our coverage of GFW has been WP:UNDUE all along, having bought into the hype for the promotion which is barely above vaporware. Jarrett hyped it to the moon, and the wrestling press followed along, but the company has has never amounted to anything significant. I don't believe that it deserves as many separate articles as we currently give it. oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with OK. I'd support an AFD if you go that route. Feedback 16:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't even think the titles deserve separate articles. Extreme Rising's world title doesn't have one and that got a considerable amount of coverage in comparison, albeit probably not for the right reasons. WP:UNDUE and WP:GNG apply here.LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I made an AfD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  • GFW never took off the ground. They were never on the level of TNA, ROH or Lucha Underground. They were and are just a minor promotion. starship.paint ~ KO 00:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article was deleted. However, the template isn't Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 8 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Two new GFW AfDs may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Force Wrestling tournaments.LM2000 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And the GFW navbox is up for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 2.LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Template for cagematch.net and wrestlingdata.com

Would anyone object to me creating templates to add links to cagematch.net and wrestlingdata.com profiles of wrestlers? They are both databases of professional wrestling, with information on wrestlers, events, matches, etc, and seem to be very comprehensive. The template would be similar to [1] that links to someone's IMDb page, and be included on the external links section of articles. Silverfish (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • No objections from me. Thank you very much, Silverfish. starship.paint ~ KO 02:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Due to the amount of reliable/semi-reliable databases (per WP:PW/RS), would it be better to list them all on a single line to avoid clutter? Such as:
Though, I'm not sure if that is feasible or recommended to avoid per some guideline. Prefall 05:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think having them on one line would work, as the standard format seems to be for someone's name to be the link (See John Cena, for example). We could have one template that generates a line for each database, so we could change the formatting or add new websites if we want. My plan would be for the template to pull the identifiers from wikidata (as the imdb template does), ignoring sites that don't apply. I also propose that we include Online World of Wrestling profiles too, as that seems to be a good source, and we already use OWW on some wrestlers' pages (see Mike Bell (wrestler), say). Silverfish (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance (I'm still pretty new) but I don't really understand what it is that you are asking to do. Does this mean that the sources will be counted as one?*Treker (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Essentially what I'm proposing is a template like {{prowrestlingprofiles}}, that would expand out to:

My preference is to store the identifier (the part that specifies the person referred to, so 691 for John Cena on Cagematch) for each website on WikiData, and then when you use the template on someone's page it pulls the identifier for them from Wikidata, and uses it to link to their profile on each website (if they have one). In case you are not familiar with Wikidata, it's a website that acts as a database for Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikiquotes, etc), that aims to have a page for each Wikipedia article, that has information about the subject of the article. The page for John Cena has information about him, and is connected to his Wikipedia article (in different language Wikipedias). His identifier at CageMatch is already there (the CageMatch worker id). The advantage of storing data on Wikidata is that any language version of Wikipedia can use the information. Alternatively we could have the template set up like this: {{prowrestlingprofiles|cagematch = 691, wd = 336, iwd = john-cena-350, oww = j/john-cena/}}, where we include the identifiers in the template. My preference would be to pull data from Wikidata, but possibly with the option to include the identifiers in the template for people less comfortable with Wikidata. The identifiers could then be imported into Wikidata. I hope this is clear, but if not let me know, and I'll try to explain further.

I think the key parts of my question/proposal were 1) Are these websites worth including, 2) How do we format the links and 3) Do we store the identifiers locally, on Wikidata, or a combination of the two. Silverfish (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if any of the links are worth including, but I also have a rather dim view of "pro wrestling statistics" outside of title histories, as won-loss records and such are actually utterly meaningless unless it's brought up as part of a storyline. So I see no reason to include such sites. oknazevad (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. I am not confident in the robustness of data on these websites and I think less is more when it comes to external links. McPhail (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
What aren't you convinced about? Are you arguing for not including any such sites (note that cagematch is currently listed as a reliable source), or for just restricting it to 1 or 2, and if so, which would you be happy including? Personally, I think we should include at least one database-style site, as they include more detail than we would here, in an analogous way to what IMDB does for actors. Silverfish (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest sticking to Cagematch then. Having links to four different websites would just be messy and Cagematch appears to be the most comprehensive. McPhail (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'll work on a template to cover cagematch, but with a generic name {{prowrestlingprofiles}}>, say, in case we want to include other websites. I've noticed that some pages already have an Online World of Wrestling profile on them - should I remove them for consistency? Silverfish (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I've created the template. As it just covers cagematch, I've reused the Template:cagematch that already existed but it was hardly used, and could only link properly to Summer Rae's profile. I've added the template to AJ Lee, and John Cena. I plan to add it to other articles in time, if you like the template. It is setup so it defaults to importing the identifier from Wikidata and using the pagename (without anything in brackets), as the name for the link. I think importing from Wikidata is the ideal, and the corresponding property for the identifier is Cagematch Worker Id (property 2728) on Wikidata, if someone is missing an identifier. We already have a few hundred wrestler's with identifier on Wikidata.

Does anyone have any comments, or does anyone object to me adding it to other articles? Silverfish (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Going back to my original suggestion, I found precedent for a similar approach of listing the major databases all in one row. See {{baseballstats}}, {{basketballstats}}, {{footballstats}} and {{Ice Hockey Stats}}, which in total are used in over 21,000 articles. If we are going to link these profiles, this seems to be a good compromise; users have the option of selecting the database they prefer, and the template can maintain all of the reliable databases without us having to select a favorite. Prefall 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about it, this seems like a reasonable compromise, as people might have their own preferences about which site they prefer. I'm not sure if Online World of Wrestling should be included, as it doesn't offer a database, it is mostly written in prose, so it doesn't appear to offer much that wikipedia can't. I'm going to come back to this later, anyway. I'll add the identifiers on wikidata while adding the cagematch template, and then if we agree, I'll create a template to cover the cagematch, wrestlingdata and Internet Wrestling Database. Silverfish (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No, OWW doesn't make much sense. Even if it were sortable, it's the most incomplete, typo-filled and open-source of the bunch. Its heyday was Wikipedia's early day, so many of our articles retain it, but if it just showed up today looking like this, I think modern Wikisociety would dismiss it as just another content farm. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I've created a template (Template:ProfessionalWrestlingProfiles), that links to profiles from cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, with a format similar to that suggested by User:Prefall. It pulls the identifier from Wikidata if it isn't included in the template. I've used it at John Cena as a test and it looks like this:

  • Script error: No such module "Professional_wrestling".

I think this is a good compromise between providing useful information and not making the external links section too cluttered. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? I plan to add it to other articles if people are happy with it. Silverfish (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a few small changes if that's alright, but otherwise it looks great. Good job. Prefall 05:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The changes seem sensible. I'm going to start adding the template to other articles now. If anyone disagrees about the websites used, we can easily change the template. Silverfish (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Expansion

Edgars2007 asked at Module talk:Professional wrestling why we don't also include other profile links in this template, such as those from WWE, which are currently maintained through the {{WWE superstar}} template. Personally, I agree with merging it and also including any other notable promotions, but I wanted to bring it here for consensus.

After a little bit of digging, here are a few notes:

  • All WWE profiles have been imported into Wikidata, thanks to Edgars2007 and Silverfish, so that won't be a problem.
  • Promotions such as New Japan Pro Wrestling and Ring of Honor seem to only maintain profiles for active personnel, which is an annoying issue.
  • Impact Wrestling has overhauled their website and seem to not even have a roster page anymore.
  • Wrestlers often use different names when switching promotions, or become popular under multiple names, so forcing a name value onto this template might not be a good idea after all. Perhaps we could simplify it to "Professional wrestling profiles from WWE, Cagematch.net, [...]", which is also consistent with the sports templates I previously mentioned.

What do you guys think? Prefall 11:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the different names thing is a particular problem, as the database websites are about the performer, listing all the gimmicks they have used. It seems to make sense to use (say) Sami Zayn as the name of the performer, as that's his common name, although it's not his only ring name, or real name. That said, I wouldn't object to removing the name from the link.
I think it's probably best to keep the other official website links separate, at least for know, and work on getting individual templates working with wikidata for each individual promotion, and then combining them into one template once we are reasonably confident the kinks have been ironed out. In the case of the wwe links, when they were imported into wikidata it has revealed some issues with how they are used on wikipedia, and how the wwe.com website works. Looking at the constraint violations ([2]), in particular, on wikipedia we have links to profiles on tag teams on the pages of wrestlers, and vice versa. This would need some work on wikidata and the template to work properly. Also, we have Charles Wright, who has wwe.com profiles as The Godfather, and Papa Shango. Here it seems clear that we must have the name included in the link, as the profiles are about the characters, not the performers. This would seem to require having a separate line in the external links section. Ideally I'd like the case of wrestler's linking to tag team profiles, and to multiple profiles, by pulling data from wikidata if possible.
If we want to have a combined profile template, it needs to be able to handle deprecated identifiers. One example is Hulk Hogan, where I've added the wwe.com link to wikidata as deprecated, as his profile has been removed. The simplest way would be to have WWE paramater (say), that suppresses the data if it is set to no. Silverfish (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Those are solid points. I submitted one of the two Charles Wright links myself but it still managed to slip my mind. With that said, it does seem best to continue forward with the individual templates for now. Prefall 21:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reviews for Featured candidates

Hi everyone, there are two articles and one list seeking the Featured status. Please offer your thoughts if you are free and willing. starship.paint ~ KO 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over the next few days. @MPJ-DK:, you want me to review one or both?--WillC 01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would love to get input on both, trying to create a featured topic for Current CMLL Championships and both would benefit from more input. MPJ-US  01:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, if I have some time tonight I'll look over both of them. Otherwise I'll do it some point this week.--WillC 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Lucha Underground results

Many articles of wrestlers of Lucha Underground vary in the way info of results are written.

Much of the articles show results by the date taken place at the taping.

Example from Fénix (wrestler): "At the season two Ultima Lucha on January 31, 2016, Fénix, Aero Star and Drago defeated Jack Evans, Johnny Mundo and PJ Black to win the Lucha Underground Trios Championship."

Ultima Lucha 2 has not even aired yet. There are also articles that follow the show's results by the date the episodes were aired.

Example from John Morrison (wrestler): "King Cuerno attacked Mundo on the February 4 episode, beginning a feud between them; the second installment took place on the episode which aired March 11, where Mundo and Cuerno wrestled in a Steel Cage match, which was won by Mundo."

It may be very confusing to readers that watch without knowing the air date is about 4-5 months after the actual date of the taping. Is there a correct way to show the info? Sekyaw (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

We lost the dates the matches actual took place, and note the date it aired as a note. But the date the match actually took place is the day the title is won, as that's when the actual events transpired. oknazevad (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Would that also include results for non-title matches as well? In my opinion, it seems fitting to have the info read by the airing date, as dates may be confused by the dates they were taped and aired. This happened before at Johnny Mundo, as most of the info on the article is by the date the episodes were aired. This somewhat brings a problem due to his win of the Lucha Underground Championship earlier this year at the tapings (which he is still the reigning champion), and the more recent airing of his Lucha Underground Trios Championship win. When Mundo won the singles title, the info was added by the date it was taped. When his trios title win aired, it didn't fit when added after his singles title win, as he captured the trios title before the singles title, to which I have since archived the info of his singles title win in the text. Should all results be read by the date they took place or by the date the episode was aired? Sekyaw (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this useful?

There's an editor who doesn't agree with the following content "WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches", because of the following reasons:

1. It's merely stating something that every single reader over the age of 5, would be blatantly aware of.
2. The wording is awful, it sounds like some badly scripted warning on a TV show.
3. It is covered in a lot of detail on the Professional wrestling article, which is linked directly before previous location of the offending content.

if you think this is informative for every PPV, please let me know. Nickag989 (talk to me!) - 07:50 (UTC)

I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

As the editor who was trying to remove that content, obviously I don't agree with its inclusion. (on that or any PPV article)
Link to whatever section of the pro-wrestling article that makes it clear that it's all scripted, and everything is covered. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to come up regularly over the years, and discussion seems to always indicate more people disliking it. Yet it stays. At face value, that doesn't make much sense, but as long-time wrestling fans, we're likely naturally inclined to want to complain about the things we force ourselves to enjoy. If we don't establish the boilerplate introduction as the bullshitty part, how can readers appreciate the messianic arrival of the official theme song info (or whatever normal people come for)? Booking 101.
That aside, yeah, it's encyclopedically useless. The Wikilink alone explains it, and a ton more. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Even more useless when it doesn't teach what a babyface or heel is, speaking of eternal gripes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the chance to banish it. Unless there is a sudden avalanche of people explaining why it's awesome. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
They've all been "the" chance, but I'm down for boxing it up and sending it to Antarctica again. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

S

  • I see a whopper of an assumption being made here "I know it's predetermined so of course EVERYONE knows this", that's not the reality though. And there is also the part where we cannot just present this as if it's true, genuine competition either. So boiler plate or writing
    • "Then the script called for John Cena to pretend to lift the unconcious Big Show up on his shoulders and slam him to the padded ground, where Show sold it as if it hurt and Cena pinned him".
  • Do you want a quick boiler plate or stuff like the above to make sure it's not "in universe"? After all Cena did not really lift him up on his own, Big Show was not knocked out enough for a pinfall etc. Or how about "bookers decided to make Kalisto the US Chamion so they booked him to pin Alberto del Rio" vs. "Kalisto defeated Alberto Del Rio to win the US Championship" - after all the first is what actually happened, the second is what they pretended to happen.  MPJ-US  11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately, we don't need either. The lede could have "WrestleMania 32 was the thirty-second annual WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by WWE." replaced with "WrestleMania 32 was the thirty-second annual WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced and scripted by WWE." which would make it very clear from the start of the article that it was scripted, and link directly to the article that gives the 0.01% of the readers who are unaware that it was scripted, far more detailed information than a poorly worded disclaimer ever could. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Any objections, comments, or tweaks to the above, or are we good to go? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There are surely some people out there who don't know that wrestling is scripted. But they might not read wrestling on Wikipedia anyway. Featured article reviewers might ask for this disclaimer though. We can change to the one you just said above and see how it goes. starship.paint ~ KO 13:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather Wikilink "professional wrestling", but a plain "and scripted" is OK. Maybe link to screenplay, because there are people who don't know what that means, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
As long as the awkwardly worded disclaimer has gone, I have no strong feelings which term it is wikilinked to, professional wrestling, scripted and screenplay are all vast improvements. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, as anyone who has been around here for a while and seen the previous discussions knows, I loathe those stupid paragraphs with a passion. So insulting to our readers. They are not idiots, and the scripted nature of professional wrestling is common knowledge. We don't put idiotic disclaimers on every movie article, why in the blue hell do we do it here? Ditch them. Now. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has restored a little faith in Wikipedia's ability to deal with issues using common sense. I'm sure there are some obscure rules that could be quoted to support the inclusion of the disclaimer, and some to support the removal - but common sense is always a better way to deal with these issues. The only issue now, is to hunt through a million wrestling articles that have the offending disclaimer and remove it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the "produced and scripted by WWE" is a good compromise if nobody has any major objections. Nikki♥311 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

We still have policies to abide by in the end. Produced and scripted may not be enough if the rest of the article is in an attempt to be written in universe perspective. We've had this same discussion for 8 years. I wish people would just give it up already.--WillC 00:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've heard this common sense argument time and time again. Common sense only works in situations you are already familiar with. The tag is there for people who aren't familiar with the subject matter so common sense plays absolutely no role.--WillC 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It keeps coming up because it's is an unneeded passage that repeats common knowledge, and many have been saying this for 8 years. Seems like you're the only one claiming we need it to keep it to follow policy. No else agrees, for the simple reason that it is unneeded. It's not just common sense, it is within policy to not have to state that every work of fiction is fictional. And we are allowed to assume that readers know what works are fictional. Just as a novel need only state it's a novel written by its author, or a film is a film directed by whomever, stating a pro wrestling PPV is scripted and produced by a promotion is sufficient. More than that is undue redundancy. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this thread dozens of times but I don't recall ever chiming in before. The wording is clunky but has always served a purpose to readers who lack common sense. The "and scripted" proposal is far less clunky and serves the same purpose. Let's go with that.LM2000 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is no one has to agree. We have to write articles in a perspective that is not in universe. You might as well get used to it. You will have to explain things to readers regardless. Always. The policies that we must abide by are created by the entirety of this site and all the users. We are a handful of people. In the end, we will lose the argument. We can't write in universe. I can go pick any of the new PPVs and pull out passages that obviously show that your common knowledge argument is false when every single writer wants to act like Jericho literally knocked someone out with a potted plant. "It is still real to be damn it" is pretty strong amongst all the new users. And to put another nail in the common knowledge argument, I've been asked to provide a source for this paragraph in reviews because reviewers weren't sure it was even true. When information needs to be verified, it isn't common knowledge.--WillC 05:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but who in the blue hell made you the sole judge of whether something follows policy?!? Of everyone agrees that a briefer way to state the same thing is better ("less is more", as LM2000 aptly puts it below.) then that is the way it will be stated, even if you don't agree. You are not the sole judge, you do not have ylunique infallible insight into applying policy, consensus doesn't require unaninimity, and you disagreeing with consensus cl isn't make it any less consensus. Or any less a valid reading of policy. I think you need to get over yourself here. As Hulk notes below, you only seem to care about FA status. It's not worh it, as the reviewers still show a bias against pro wrestling, just like the ones at WP:ITNC regarding deaths of wrestlers. Couldn't get Verne friggin Gange to even get a "recent deaths" mention due to pure anti-pro-wrestling bias. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't explictly name names. I was also implicitly referring to Commissioner Will's Japanese sidekick. They had a short run together, but a good one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"stating a pro wrestling PPV is scripted and produced by a promotion is sufficient." - And that is exactly what the paragraph says in plain English fluffed up to look professional.--WillC 05:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes less is more. The paragraph's extended explanations are inaccurate or need further explanation. "Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains..." Did they? Does that make Roman Reigns a "hero"? Wouldn't a user unfamiliar with wrestling be perplexed when they read further down the lede to find the crowd's reaction to him? "consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television..." Except often times, especially nowadays, PPV cards usually include quite a handful of matches that got thrown on the card without any prior storylines or buildup. The goal of the paragraph is to explain that there is no legitimate athletic competition. The proposal does that better than the paragraph. The nuances of storyline buildup and heel/face alignment can be developed in their appropriate sections.LM2000 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Fluffing is only professional in advertising, porn and snack foods. Everywhere else, efficiency is the goal. This large chunk has proven problematic. Makes us squabble instead of work, and makes our articles look odd to the 97.9% of consumers who use the post-kayfabe Internet. If an integrated circuit can replace two pounds of cell phone, a Wikilink can and should replace two pounds of puff.
One thing I've never read explained over the years is how a kid who believes wrestling is legit is harmed in any way by not having his fantasy explicitly and tediously spoiled at any and every event article he comes across. Always seems more about not getting Featured Articles, which we continue to not get regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I wish them well. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your issue regarding tweeners can be solved. I solved it on every single PPV I've ever done. The problem is the WWE PPVs can't keep up. Look at Bound for Glory IV. Sure the paragraph can be re-written. It is only 2 bloody sentences, not 20. The issue is the WWE disclaimers are different than the TNA disclaimers. Someone decided they needed to focus on each program instead of the overall product. Another issue is that the storyline and heel/face alignment is absolutely never ever ever flushed out in the sections. The moment after that paragraph, the articles are written in universe and act give very little incite to the character development. Otherwise, people throw the words heel and face in there without any explanation as to how the characters are that. It is easy to suggest throwing out something, but this isn't the Republican Party, we need to come up with solutions and replacements, not just stall and destroy whatever we can touch. I'd be interested in rewording, but one word does not fix the issue nor does 5. There are policies to attend too regardless. Y'all may think this is about Featured Articles, but it is more than that. Like I have said a billion times. It is about the numerous policies such as WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, WP:JARGON, etc. If we are going to change or update, the solution has to be inline with those policies, not focused on the concern of smart marks who don't like being told their fantasy is false.--WillC 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Wrestlinglover: it does seem like you are the only objector here, compared to several 'yes'es. Why don't we just try it out and see how it goes? My opinion is to follow this suggestion. If any further problems come up, raise it here and we can all try to solve them together. starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyway, for concerns regarding IN-U, I propose following a fictional character FA: Poppy Meadow. Instead of the section header for Professional wrestling career will be amended to Professional wrestling career and storylines. starship.paint ~ KO 04:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
We can't ignore consensus because of one objecting editor. I think the priority should always be about using common sense to make good articles. Removing the disclaimer has done that. Good job, guys. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It is hilarious how you think there is a consensus when you can't have a consensus to go against the very policy that is the entirety of Wikipedia. Your supposed consensus is to ignore the three policies I have listed above entirely. Guess what? You can't do that because they policies are beyond our very control and thus we'd be failing the manual of style. Plus, I'm not alone. MPJ above also was arguing for the disclaimer. I'm completely open to updating. The problem is there is no idea on how to update it. The only idea presented is to blow everything up. No one is explaining how to bring new ideas and how to go by policy. Just the new users who have never written a single article and thus have very little understanding of what they are doing.--WillC 18:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, cut the crap. I've written plenty of articles, have tens of thousands of edits and have been on Wikipedia for over a dozen years. Don't dare lecture me. You know what else is policy? WP:IAR. But guess what? In still not evoking that. What I am doing is stating outright that you are not the final arbiter of policy compliance, and that you need to check your ego, pal. If the consensus is that the much shorter version incorporated into the first sentence is a sufficient allocation of policy, then you can whine all you want, but tough shit, consensus is against you. And it is, that is clear from reading the section here. Frankly, the obstinacy and obstructionism is tiresome. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Wrestlinglover and MPJ-DK: - new idea: change the section header for Professional wrestling career to Professional wrestling career and storylines. Or even "scripted storylines" if you want to make it super clear. starship.paint ~ KO 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm not sold on that one, I cannot stand overly long headers. Side note - the scripted in the lead is a real good idea, good call on that. I cannot stand the articles that uses "hero" and "villain" or "heroic" and "villanous" etc. Working mainly on Lucha articles the heel/face distinction is much clearer in Mexico - and yes a face that is booed is still a face, it's the role he plays not the reaction he gets so to me Reigns is a face so I see no problems stating that he is booked as a face. I do however not agree that "it's common knowledge" that wrestling is pre-determined, "common knowledge" (like "common sense") is not that common in my experience. I don't care so much about the GA/FA review comments, it's honestly a minor consideration compared to actually writing good, clear, neutral and informative articles, irregardless of if they are "C" class or "FA" class. For wrestling shows the main article should be clear on the scripted nature and that wrestlers portray face or heel, a quick line or two and we avoid really crappily written articles where "Kurt Angle was scripted to lift up Cody Rhodes and simulate slamming him to the mat in a move called the "Angle Slam"." (not an actual example to prevent hurting people's feelings).  MPJ-US  01:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - I too do not like long headers. But in this case I think it's pertinent. Alternatively, how about Professional wrestling storylines instead of Professional wrestling career? I agree with you on "it's the role he plays not the reaction he gets", but I've think I've seen Meltzer and editors on PWTorch say something roughly like "this guy plays a face but he's a heel to the fans". starship.paint ~ KO 01:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - Now that's the kind of thing that should be mentioned, it's no different than the reception of a movie etc. and to me is a natural part of an article on say Roman Reigns. The "pw career" section is not just about storylines, it's also companies the person worked for, injuries, reception, suspensions etc. to me "Pro wrestling career" covers all that just fine.  MPJ-US  01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • mmm alright. I just wanted to stress the scripted nature for unknowing readers in a prominent position. starship.paint ~ KO 02:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Oh please, you can complain all you want, I have yet to see you do one thing other than leave a comment here and there. Please show an article you have gotten reviewed or contributed a single useful edit too. You can say you are trying to improve, but that entire statement never left one useful statement. I'm simply trying to suggest that we actually do something that will counteract the effects done by new users. A one word statement does not negate the effect that the articles are still written in universe. The paragraph helps to counteract that. My efforts may come off as "obstinacy and obstructionism" but that is because I have come to recognize after years that news users don't care. They want to writer fan fiction, not encyclopedia content.--WillC 05:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Now as for the rest. I myself dislike the current paragraph and I am ready to update it. I don't see any suggestions on how to improve it. All I see is complaining and wanting to kill it but no ideas on how to fix it. Wrestling is fiction and it is pre-determined. This should be included in articles to properly explain the subject matter. I feel including that it is scripted in the first line is a start but it is no way the finish of the issue. The way articles are written is an issue. Ambrose and Jericho do not legitimately hate each other, nor did either get hit by an actual potted plant. This needs to be mentioned in a proper way. One word does not explain this.--WillC 05:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

New one-sentence disclaimer?

Version 1: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in events scripted and pre-determined by their professional wrestling promotions."

Version 2: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in the scripted events that are pre-determined by the professional wrestling promotion or organization."

Version 3: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in scripted events pre-determined by professional wrestling promotions or organizations."

  • @Wrestlinglover: - I came up with the above 15 words. I think it's short, sweet and versatile. It should solve the WP:INU problem and can be inserted into event pages or bios. starship.paint ~ KO 11:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I see promise here. It is a start. Kind of clunky. I'd say Professional wrestlers perform as characters in the scripted events that are pre-determined by the professional wrestling promotion or organization. Or something along those lines.--WillC 18:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
That's...actually pretty solid. I still don't know if we need it for every article under the project's purview, but it's still much more reader friendly and doesn't read like a grade school textbook. oknazevad (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Version 2 or 3 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • 2 or 3 works for me as the "standard", I believe that each article should cover heel/face details as need be for the article topic. Ex WWE articles post-Attitude era probably has more challenges with the face/heel distinction than Lucha where it is more clearcut and less Tweenerrific.  MPJ-US  15:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The last 2 versions have better wording, at least from my opinion. Nickag989 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Version 1 looks tightest to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any of them would fit the flow in an article. The current disclaimer fits the context of the article. These seem more in-your-face than the current standard, so I would oppose all of them. Fixing the verb tense to reflect that these refer to events that took place in the past would be a start. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @GaryColemanFan: - if you want to change the verb tense, please go ahead and propose Version 4 and add it above. When I proposed some of the above versions, I was intending to insert them into wrestler biographies too, not only event articles. I don't believe a disclaimer of "wrestling is scripted" would really flow anywhere in a wrestler's biography. My intention is to put it right below the ==Professional wrestling career== header before any ===Something=== sections. Plus, I think being in-your-face is fine, because this is meant to dispel WP:INU. starship.paint ~ KO 02:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any disclaimer is required & certainly not a generic disclaimed for all articles. The above three are certainly an improvement of the previous disclaimer, but the wording was not the only issue. It's about the same as having a disclaimer stating "the Undertaker is not really undead" - if something is really required, then it should be written naturally as to fit the flow of each article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Oknazevad is totally correct, there is no consensus for including this disclaimer on the article. Merely stating which disclaimer do you want, doesn't mean we have to have one. Adding the word "scripted" and having a link to the professional wresting article is more than enough. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
And based on the amount of people who have said "no disclaimers" in this discussion, and in previous discussions, I consider there to be consensus, and will be removing that disclaimer (and other similar disclaimers) from wrestling articles. I'm sorry, but the main issue here is editors thinking they can ignore consensus and common sense, due to their ownership of wrestling articles. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And thus the discussion dies and the content disputes begin. Well that way almost productive.  MPJ-US  11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It died the moment people started to ignore consensus, and rather than accepting that consensus was against including a disclaimer, thought it would be a good idea to stay "well consensus says no disclaimer, so here's a choice of three" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought we had a consensus for removal of the disclaimer too and am confused how we ended up back at the drawing board. We're never going to get unanimous consensus, but we did come close with the "and scripted by WWE" proposal in the previous thread. The three proposals above are better than the paragraph but I think regardless of which one we end up with we'll be in a situation where nobody is satisfied. With that, I !vote for none of the proposals above and stick with the proposal that almost everybody who responded seemed to agree to.LM2000 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. No disclaimer. And should also mention WP:NODISCLAIMERS, which doesn't strictly apply, but is certainly within the spirit of the objections. oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We did have a consensus for removing the supposedly "awkwardly worded disclaimer". But to address WillC's valid WP:INU concerns, I proposed a new, succinct disclaimer. To the objectors - @GaryColemanFan, Spacecowboy420, LM2000, and Oknazevad: - how should we deal with WP:INU in biographical articles? starship.paint ~ KO 03:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Honestly, just including the word "scripted" in the lead with the link to professional wrestling is sufficient in my mind. Possibly also expanding the standards header from "Career" to "Career and storylines" (it's not that long). Maybe swapping out a few spots of "entered into a feud" with "entered into a storyline". Spacecowboy's comment about writing such things naturally into the flow of an article is spot on, I think. A standard boiler plate disclaimer just doesn't strike me as the right approach at all, as it just kinda stands out like a sore thumb, feels forced, and is just too patronizing for my taste. The current disclaimer is terrible, no ifs, ands, or buts. A shorter one would be better, but a more naturally written, integrated flow is best. oknazevad (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm going to again voice my support for "Professional wrestling career and storylines" then. starship.paint ~ KO 04:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ... and Spacecowboy420 ... instead of a hostile, with me or against me approach... why not try harder to make things win-win for everyone? MPJ-DK has basically predicted content disputes after your hardliner approach. I actually supported your proposal above. But after WillC stated his arguments I did see that he has his concerns too. starship.paint ~ KO 03:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, I should say that stuff in the lede should be mentioned in the body too. So "scripted" has to be mentioned not only in the lede but also in the body. starship.paint ~ KO 04:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Oknazevad and Spacecowboy that putting "scripted" and linking professional wrestling is good enough, though I agree they should be in the lede and the body. I still don't support any disclaimers and I have no opinion on changing headers.LM2000 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. A hostile attitude solves nothing. I have no issues with "scripted" being mentioned (and linked to) in the lede. Linking to professional wrestling is also good. We should take advantage of the strengths of Wikipedia, we can write articles that assume readers have a certain level of knowledge, while providing links to articles that give more detail for those who require it. For the record, I do not support any form of disclaimer on these articles, the links provide all we need. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to state for the record that I feel that there might be a need for a disclaimer. I believe WillC and MPJ-DK feel so too. I will certainly bring this issue back here if any GA/FA editors feel there is a need for that. starship.paint ~ KO 07:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really qualified to comment on how important it is to get an article to GA/FA status. I guess that is something that will be discussed if/when it is required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Well it is required so guess what, based on the above back and forth I'm going to say no consensus has been established because an consensus has to be clear and convincing. Based on a few editors other than myself seeking to better articles, now the floor looks to be open. We have a chance to update the disclaimer which is needed based on policies and to maintain status with the manual of style for improved and revised content. No way around that. We have to explain that wrestling is beyond just scripted. Sorry spacecowboy, can't just decide you want things and then try to end the discussion.--WillC 05:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

First off let me say I was asked my opinion on which sounded better and I gave said opinion, I never voted for anything to be put on there I was under the impression the decision was already made. Secondly I was also unaware there was already a consensus done for removal or I would not have given my opinion on which one I preferred unfortunately. With all that said being the webmaster for a retired wrestler who makes sure I not only post his good things but also makes sure I post his past drug problems not only here but also on his website and that I wrestled myself 20 yrs ago when I was in my 20's for about 4 yrs, people are not stupid, no one believes that any of it is real anymore like it was in years past or when I was a kid for that matter. Most kids now a days know its all for show, at least most kids I have met over the years. If we are doing a Consensus then I would be voting for it not to be there or to just be "and scripted by WWE". Sorry guys but I was just giving my opinion on which ones I thought sounded better if it was going to be on there.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

After going back and doing some reading I did vote it down to be removed during the last discussion. I was unaware a consensus was reached for it to be removed but I did vote it to be removed, I apologize for my forgetfulness in my old age.

"I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)"

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep as is - Nothing better has been proposed, and that includes removal. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • WarMachine, first you aren't supposed to be on here doing work for someone else. If that is what you are saying, you may just be reported to an admin one day for that action. Secondly, if you are saying everyone knows it then there should be absolutely no problem with mentioning it. If it is a given fact, then we should mention it. Two edged sword. Can't say everyone knows it and not think it is therefore notable to the product. I do find it funny that new users who want change still have no argument against the policies I've mentioned or even know how to counteract them. If we are going to improve articles, then lets improve them with actual discussion bent on evolving the situation and not trying to make fan fiction.--WillC 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
What policies? WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, WP:JARGON? On May 23 you seemed to acknowledge that the "and scripted" proposal does the same job as the paragraph disclaimer, only that it was "fluffed up to look professional". It's a lot of fluff alright, but more succinct works better. I've never seen a single item brought to this page to be disputed so frequently. You've been here a long time and have done a lot of great work but you must remember consensus can change over time (WP:CCC) and your snobbish responses to new users is unproductive (see WP:NPA). WarMachine should check out WP:COI though.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

First off it was made very clear on my own user page when it was created I was the webmaster for someone,"which by the way I am not paid for doing I do it for free so I don't really work for him". Secondly there were admins made aware when I joined who I was and I was told how I was to handle my editing as not to cause any issues to arise. Quite frankly I do more edits on other stuff than I ever have done on his. Not one other person in the wrestling wiki community or wiki period who knows who i am and what I do has ever said a word until you now. So now because I don't take your side on this ridiculous argument your going to attack me? Got it glad to see how it works on here thanks for clearing that up for me. I withdraw myself from this conversation as clearly noone can have civil conversations about this matter without being hostile when someone doesn't side with them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

First) I'm realistic when it comes to new users. I was one at one point as well and I remember the mentality and the pointlessness of caring. I call it like I see it. Am I being civil? Yes. Because I'm being blunt and honest. New users don't seem to care about standards and improvement. They just want to write about the storylines and basically create fanfiction. I can present plenty articles that would be examples. Second) WarMachine, I was giving you a heads up so you won't get blocked. Forgive me for not being clear on trying to give you some proper counsel.--WillC 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

break

It seemed that we were headed towards something that looked like a consensus but new proposals sent us in a couple of different directions. Before the discussion is archived and we end up at "no consensus" I would just like a quick count on where everyone stands.LM2000 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Remove disclaimer.LM2000 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOVOTE--WillC 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I never implied the count would be a substitute for a consensus. At the start of this thread it seemed the overwhelming majority was tilted in one direction, this was muddled after additional proposals were thrown into the mix. It seems almost nobody is content with the current version and it'd be unfortunate it this closed again as "no consensus". Should it go down that road, at least knowing where everyone stands now should help out when we have this inevitable conversation later on.LM2000 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This conversation has been going on since Summer 2008 and the exact same users who were involved in the original discussion basically stand the exact same place they did then as they do now. Gary was involved in that and he has changed his stance some. I have changed my stance some. MPJ has shifted little. The only difference really is new users come in and want to change something they quite never understood to begin with. I can read the above responses and clearly see there was never a consensus. It was a bunch of people who were upset about the disclaimer and a choice to amend policy was discussed. Then it got muddied. No where was it fully agreed to remove. I clearly saw Gary and MPJ arguing for change but not blowing it up. I saw Starship trying to play middle ground and get efficient change done. If you can't follow what is going on, then what good is the vote anyway? Not one person above discussed how it would affect the current and future articles. Not one user discussed the effect it would have with polices. There was no logical reasoning implored, it was just emotional against the statement. It has always been that way. "Well everyone knows it." Good, then why is it a problem we are stating something that is true? "It makes wrestling fans look dumb." They shouldn't have such sensitive egos.--WillC 01:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
This is the problem, Will. Dismissing people who disagree with you as people who "never quite understood" it, or stating that only you have used logical reasoning. Frankly, your attitude is obnoxious and insulting. Just because people disagree with you on the best way to apply policy doesn't mean they don't understand the policy. Utterly uncollaborative, and a poor way to act to other editors. Frankly, it's to the point where you should be ignored by others so they can have a civil and productive discussion without being insulted.
As for logical reasoning, here's the simple logic behind my reasoning: the disclaimer is akin to using a 12-pound sledgehammer to drive in a finishing nail. It's a blunt instrument when a more subtle and appropriate method exists. It's also a band-aid; instead of using things like differing headers and better word selection throughout the body text that can accomplish the same purpose in a way that is actually a superior application of policies, we resort to leaving the poorly written, jargon-filled, in-universe material and just act like a one-paragraph disclaimer covers everything. That is poor writing and poor application of policy. We can do better than that, and unlike past discussions, good solutions are found herein. But it requires us to let go of the current non-solution, no matter how difficult it was to arrive at in the first place, and to believe that your fellow editors can act in good faith, instead of dismissing them. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Oknazevad: I see your point and respect your intentions. But I just think it's idealistic. We have too many articles for too few editors to maintain properly. I agree with WillC - poor writing is all too abundant when IPs contribute much of the work. I believe a band-aid is more suited for us - either a short disclaimer or standardized headers which break kayfabe. Better an article with a disclaimer than an article with in-universe writing and no disclaimer. starship.paint ~ KO 07:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Well first, you operate on several logical fallacies sir and in an attempt to twist words miss the point of some statements. But allow me to examine your statement here for a moment. I dismiss people who disagree with me is an odd statement. Do I reject their argument? Yes. Other than that, I don't care. I'm attempting to actually go by policy anymore and write articles when I want. Just like I've done for years. I'm trying to expand content and raise the quality of articles around here. I'm concerned with decisions that affect that realm. If by rejecting arguments makes one assume I dismiss people, then I'll pay the price for improving content. I said that logical reasoning didn't appear to be a conception behind the arguments I listed above. I never said only I did. If you find insult in my statements please show me where so that I can show I not once directed an insult at anyone other than position my own stance on subjects and issues. Do I critique new editors because they usually offer poor content, little desire to understand and consult consensus, and a abundance of other issues. Yes. Do you place yourself into this category? Do you offer poor content, little desire, etc.? If not, then you shouldn't be insulted. Offer a more subtle method and we shall discuss that like above. Once a compromise was being discussed I even offered ideas. Then the discussion collapsed not because of I. I'm very open to evolving the methods to conform with policy. The quest is to actually do compromise instead of suicide mission all or nothing style.
Now as to your last part. How you described how articles should be written without the paragraph, I write articles exactly like that. Better headers, better wording, etc. Look at Bound for Glory IV. Now turn around and look at Slammiversary (2016). How you want to write can only be done through extensive work and an attempt at good high quality content. You say we can do better? Well the chance is now and always has been to do good content. Ips and new users aren't interested in that. Quality is not a priority. The paragraph exists to inform the reader and to create a realm for the article. If you want to raise the quality of articles, then continuing down the path of lets remove all wording that it is scripted won't get you there.--WillC 08:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
You seemed to answer your own question about policies on May 23 when you said the proposals and paragraph served the same purpose, only the paragraph was fluffier. Then there was some argument against fluff. I've always scrolled through these threads in the past, I looked forward to never having to do that again. You are right though, no consensus was formed. To paraphrase MPJ, it was almost productive. I guess it ultimately wasn't. Maybe next time, but probably not.LM2000 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It is one reason I am the way I am in these discussions. I know they aren't going to lead to anything productive. They never have. The only result of these discussions was to remove some of the extreme reforms we did. Everyone thinks this is bad. Look at the original version of Summerslam 2003--WillC 01:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
At least SummerSlam 2003's poster is nice.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Standard disclaimer or not - really I'm not too bothered either way right now, but it cannot be written totally "in universe", so however you want to handle it in any wrestling article, as long as it's well written then works for me. THe suggested disclaimer is to ensure the "in universe" aspects, but if someone thinks they can handle it differnetly then more power to ya.  MPJ-US  02:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think everyone has good intentions. We have users not wanting to treat readers like idiots. We also have users who want to abide by policy to be out-of-universe. I read your intentions and I do believe change is needed. There is no need for the fluff in the current disclaimer. It must be cut down - to one sentence preferably. Also, I don't think adding "and scripted" to the ledes and the bodies are enough - these two words will be easily missed. I believe there are indeed people out there who don't know about wrestling, or that it is scripted. We are all wrestling fans here - of course we know how wrestling works, but others might not. Yet we don't need to mollycoddle unknowing people with a paragraph. TL;DR, one sentence short disclaimer. starship.paint ~ KO 05:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • If we're not going to remove the disclaimer then I actually agree with Gary, the paragraph does a better job than the proposals. Perhaps we need voices from outside this wikiproject to tell us just how much we have to hold the hands of the uninitiated. We may as well be thorough if we really have to describe what professional wrestling is beyond calling it scripted and linking in the right direction.LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've used various forms of disclaimers. I try to keep them brief. I'm probably happiest with the one from King of the Ring (1993), which is a single sentence at the end of the first lead paragraph: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF." It doesn't disrupt the flow, doesn't go into excessive detail, and doesn't violate WP:IN-U. In that article, I also put another sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Background" section: "In these matches, wrestlers were portrayed as villains or fan favorites and wrestled in matches that built upon pre-existing feuds and storylines." I would be fine with seeing the second sentence go, as I feel that the one in the lead accomplishes the purpose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts about using something along those lines as a one-sentence disclaimer? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability - Gzim Selmani

Some MMA guys are trying to delete the article for Gzim Selmani because he narrowly fails the notability requirement for MMA fighters. I tried to explain that he is notable as part of the featured NXT television roster, can someone clarify that this is the case? If not then this also affects others such as Elias Samson and No Way Jose who were also given articles when they debuted on NXT. The Selmani article's existence clearly is justified BTW, it's fully sourced and according to WP:PAGEVIEW it has been viewed over 2,000 times per day on average since its creation. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There was another AFD regarding Central States wrestling alumni wherein the nominator made some remark about "notable alumni". In other words, I'm supposed to believe that Moose Cholak, Cowboy Bob Ellis and Ronnie Etchison aren't notable because no one has bothered to write articles about them, despite the fact that they were among the biggest stars in the entire United States during their respective heydays, while concurrently believing that a bunch of recent NXT signings are notable for little reason other than they've joined the Big Hype Machine. All this simply over cherry-picking sources to the point where we resemble the news sites we scavenge instead of an encyclopedia. It's ironic that Albania is located on the Balkan Peninsula, because this attitude in general, plus the attitudes I've seen expressed specifically in that AFD, pretty much epitomizes balkanization. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
My initial reaction was "Nobody named Ronnie Etchison has ever existed." But that's not entirely accurate. Without him, there'd be no Butch Reed, and without Butch Reed, there'd be no Central States Wrestling. Or so it seems. Thanks again for the tip, voice from the past!
As for Selmani, it appears he'll be fine. The secondary sources are multiple and independent, if not (yet) particularly deep. But as KAOS says, WWE's the Big Hype Machine. Depth is coming soon enough to make deleting it once pointless. A guy named No Way Jose is sort of asking for it, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Move The Wrestling Classic?

It's currently at WWF The Wrestling Classic. That sounds terrible, nobody says it and disambiguation isn't needed. Should just be the The Wrestling Classic. All in favour? All opposed? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jameboy: Still for this? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. CrashUnderride 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, still in favour of The Wrestling Classic. Jameboy (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's move it.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes Move it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Tagged the redirect for speedy deletion. Now we just wait for someone powerful to see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks beautiful. Cheers to consensus! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair use image uploaded, comments welcome

I'm pretty sure I've never uploaded a fair use image until now. At least I'm sure I left a "detailed" FUR as is typically requested. See File:Nippon TV acknowledges KPLR-TV in broadcast of Giant Baba vs. Harley Race match.png and KPLR-TV#Programming. As this falls under the project's topic, any comments are welcome. I would particularly look for hints from more experienced FU uploaders, as I'm sure I have some more lying around. Somewhere in my backups is a screenshot I cropped but never uploaded of Terry Gordy slamming the cage door on Kerry Von Erich from December 25, 1982, which started the Von Erichs/Freebirds feud. Considering that World Class Championship Wrestling is a nearly 90K article with only a FU logo in the infobox and a free image of far, far less value than my proposed FU image (and here's the funny thing: it depicts someone with an article, but isn't even used in that article!), I wonder if someone would try to delete it merely on account of the existence of the free image. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You did a great job writing up a detailed rationale. It explains clearly why this particular image is significant and important for inclusion on Wikipedia. You've done the same with the image caption in the KPLR-TV article, so it is well demonstrated there as well why it should be included. All of the fields are filled out well, and it's a low enough resolution. Looks like a useful addition to Wikipedia. As for the Gordy image, if it's made clear in the rationale and caption that it's a shot of the moment that launched a major feud, it should be just fine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Priority Articles

We haven't done a group collaboration on a priority article in awhile, so may I suggest Jake Roberts? There will be two weeks to improve the article. All help is appreciated, no matter how minor. Nikki♥311 08:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NJPW and ROH templates

I have created templates to add external links for NJPR and ROH. I've used them on it Matt Sydal to start with. They look like this:

  • {{NJPW profile|id = 932|name = Matt Sydal}}}
  • {{roh roster|id = matt-sydal|name = Matt Sydal}}

=

  • Script error: No such module "Professional wrestling".
  • Script error: No such module "Professional wrestling".

Does anyone have any comments? I'll probably create other templates if I come across any more that seem useful, while I'm adding the Template:Professional wrestling profiles template. Silverfish (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Just two things. Is there any way to create an option for an English-translated version of the NJPW profile apart from having your browser translate it? Also, I didn't follow the entire discussion on the wrestler profiles template, so I may have missed something, but I would think it makes sense to roll promotion-specific profiles into the main template. In general, the more external link entries that are found in the article, the more the links will draw scrutiny (and often outright deletion) from uninterested / uninvolved editors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Yes, it turns out there is an english version of the website, and you can link directly to it, so I've fixed it to link to the english version.
  2. I think the conclusion we reached about combining profiles into one template is that it would be complicated to do, and would have to deal with quite a few edge cases, such as one person with multiple characters (The_Godfather_(wrestler) as the Godfather and Papa Shango, and of linking to the profiles of tag teams on the pages of their members (and vice versa). I think they probably can be handled, but would require some thought to get it right. I think the first stage could be to combine links to multiple profiles from one promotion: something like "profiles of Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns at WWE.com" on one line for the Shield, say. When I'm next in serious template writing mode, that will probably be the next thing I'll try. Adding a template for a single link for one promotion, by contrast, is very straightforward. Silverfish (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please volunteer in this Move

Talk:Colin Cassady Colin Cassady → Big Cass - SethAdam99 (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Unneeded info

I am having a bit of a debate with one of your members, I have removed sections similar to the following:

"The event consited of twelve professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines. Wrestlers portrayed either heels (wrestlers portraying the "bad guy" characters) or faces ("good guy" characters) as they competed in wrestling matches with pre-determined outcomes."

from various PPV event pages as I feel they are not needed for specific events. In my opinion if someone is looking at the event page they probably understand the basics professional wrestling and if they don't they can check Professional Wrestling.

Having such a section on every event page would be the equivalent of having a section explaining the basics of football on every Superbowl page.

Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachoha (talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

We've already discussed that problem. Yes, we know it's clunky and there have been better alternatives, but it is worth it to remove this disclaimer on EVERY pro wrestling PPV, even if there are at GA/FA status? here, cause we don't want to debate that again. Nickag989 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be a nice thing to discuss with the project before removing it from a few dozen articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That would presume I knew about the project before I had done so.nachoha (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said on my talk page I do not support the removal. We can't just assume people are going to have background knowledge on professional wrestling even if it seems obvious to us.*Treker (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • By blindly removing that section you remove the links to face and heel and thus any possibility of someone clicking a link to finding out what they are - you are turning it into more of an article for wrestling fans, which is really not the point of this place. Not saying the section cannot be removed/reduced/changed - but just taking it off means that the text should be adjusted so that next time heel or face is used it's linked and explained.  MPJ-DK  22:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I knew I'd see this blasted discussion again. I didn't know I'd see it again so quickly though.LM2000 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're not going to get rid of the disclaimer then we should probably expand rather than reduce it. If the intention is to explain professional wrestling, most people who post in these threads agree it does a piss poor job of it.LM2000 (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, we really don't need to give a full, detailed explanation of pro wrestling in every related article. There's a reason wiki links exist, and there's no need to assume readers know absolutely nothing. The last discussion appeal he'd a consensus that the disclaimer (which is a band-aid on the WP:INUNIVERSE issue) can be slimmed down and better integrated. That's still the best course of action. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I still dislike it as much as the other nine or ten times someone else has complained about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Me too. oknazevad (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Total removal is still my first choice and I agree with everything you just said. Instead of talking about hypothetical complaints we may encounter during GA/FA maybe we should start that RfC to see just how much explaining we have to do.LM2000 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Common knowledge being uncommon - I linked a DYK example where someone was not aware of the predetermined nature of pro wrestling. No biggie, but it's not just a "GA/FA" thing, just saying.  MPJ-DK  01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You know how you assume we'll know to click the blue letters if we want to learn more? That's how I feel about "professional wrestling" in every one of these event's opening sentence. Same deal as "The Namib brush-tailed gerbil or Setzer's hairy-footed gerbil, Gerbillurus setzeri, is a species of gerbil found in Angola and Namibia." I'd wager far more people don't know Namibia than don't know wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Fun Fact: Romio Goliath is not his ring name. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
So me assuming that you know how to use the internet if you're on Wikipedia is the same as you assuming someone knows what pro wrestling is when they're reading an article? Alrighty then, glad to know.  MPJ-DK  02:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Close. It's like assuming they'll click to find out if nothing makes sense, and won't be needlessly interrupted if it does. Everybody wins (and we predetermine that). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Besides, that CMLL article had the paragraph in it, and Cwmhiraeth still didn't understand after reading. How is that not useless? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Wrestlinglover: this thing again. Anyway, I propose using Professional wrestlers perform as characters, wrestling in choreographed matches as part of scripted storylines. starship.paint ~ KO 12:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And again, the same stuff brought up time and time again. We tried to create an entire new disclaimer as Paint just listed but strangely the ones who wanted change were absent for that discussion. So what will it be this time? Compromise or the all or nothing approach again? As much as people want to believe it, people don't pay attention to the history and nature of pro wrestling like some of us do. The policies dictate we need to explain the scripted approach to separate reality and fantasy. Simple as that for the billionth time.--WillC 05:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The policies dictate no such thing, and even if the did, history (real, fantastic, Wikipedian and wrestling) is rife with the will of the people changing dictatorial policy. I think we're going with Gary for the billionth-and-first time. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
And then we need to come up with an adjective for "pertaining to wrestling". Boxing gets "pugilistic". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Boris Zhukov

Can anyone please help me find a reliable source for Zhukov (a.k.a. James Harrell, a.k.a. Pvt. Jim Nelson) being born in Roanoke, Virginia? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just happy someone finally mentioned him here. Whooo! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking back, I see he got a mention in 2006 (about his real name) and in 2010 (about his real name). That second time was you, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This says he grew up watching wrestling at Starland Arena, is based in Franklin County, "returned" to Western Virginia (not West Virginia) and things have "come full circle" for him in Roanoke. Good enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
And went to Northside (so probably hates Lord Botetourt). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In 1982, he's a 23-year-old Roanoke native. That doubles as a source for the Ric McCord bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait...Don Hogan and Steve Savage broke him in? Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of Hogan, Northside's Viking looks familiar. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
To be a smartass Hulk, you could've just linked Minnesota Vikings, that's their logo also, just the green is changed to purple. lol CrashUnderride 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Lazy, thieving high-schoolers. Get off of Minnesota's lawn! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. There doesn't seem to be as much written about him as a lot of other wrestlers, so I really appreciate the help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Shinkazamaturi

This guy has been causing trouble here for awhile, I've started an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Shinkazamaturi personal attacks and WP:CIR.LM2000 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Discussion closed by admin, Shinkazamaturi blocked for a week. starship.paint ~ KO 13:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A.J. Styles

Should the "Return to WWE section of the A.J. Styles article really be named as such? I mean, prior to 2016, he only made two appearances for the company and he was never under contract. CrashUnderride 10:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that's misleading. Two try-out appearances over a decade ago don't merit calling this, his first full-time contract with the company, a "return". That's actually not an uncommon problem with some wrestlers' articles; many use terms like "return" for time spent with independent promotions.
The problem with that is the "independent" in that term is just as much about the wrestlers as it is about the promotions. Most indy wrestlers are freelancers that are not under any exclusive contract (and thus "independent" in another sense). A lot of indies run one weekend a month, so a freelance wrestler will work at a promotion's shows one weekend, then a completely separate one the next. Of course, if a promotion and wrestler have a good relationship, they may be consistently booked months in advance, and feuds may be long-lasting, but it's not the same as an exlusive contract with a major, nor is it quite the same as the old territory days. So the use of "return" is problematic when dealing with a wrestler's indy periods. And that's what AJ was back then, an Indy wrestler getting a tryout, not a member of the regular WWE roster. I'd change it. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed--WillC 17:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Also agree, this is the first time he's had a full-time contract so just "WWE" is appropriate.LM2000 (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but how many five star matches did MLK wrestle? J/k, yes it is excessive.  MPJ-DK  23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of what others outside of the wikiproject think of our articles, can we talk about article size? Other editors are often baffled at the size of our BLPs, A.J. Styles' article leaves me startled. I remember one time someone compared Bret Hart to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s article, A.J. Styles is even larger than MLK's. Can we start trimming some stuff here?LM2000 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I think trimming needed, larger issue is how everyone thinks Everytime someone sneezes it needs added to their article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think AJ's career section is looking better but could someone take a look at the "In wrestling" section and make sure everything there is correct and succinct as possible? That's a section I rarely touch as I know there's a lot of contention over just what constitutes a signature/finishing move. His move section is really long but that's not surprising given his X Division background.LM2000 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Brand Split roster listing

As you all know, the brand split is coming back so the roster listing on List of WWE personnel is going to need to divided, one of the subjectings was making 4 separate list, another was highlight the columns of the superstars and divas on Raw and Smackdown in Red and Blue respectively (similar to WWE brand extension#Superstar selections this article).

What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:1109:F2F6:680B:25A0 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Not my opinion but This was how it is in 2011 when the old brand split existed. starship.paint ~ KO 12:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • In the article talk page, people are talking about it. I prefer the old ways. It's visualy easier. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, the Draft was yesterday. Any idea for the roster article? To me, the current format is a complete mess. It's easier to split the main roster into two subsections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling articles needing copyedit

I was just looking at the Guild of Copy Editors' July backlog elimination drive and noticed that three wrestling articles are tagged as needing copy editing. If anyone is feeling inspired, they are Kayfabe, The Authority (professional wrestling), and Desperado (professional wrestling). No pressure--just if anyone is looking for something to do or is particularly interested in any of those articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External Links discussion at Template talk:WWE superstar

User:Reidgreg has started a discussion about the External Links templates, at Template talk:WWE superstar. Feel free to comment there. Silverfish (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Draft articles' capitalizations

Is there any particular reason that draft is spelled with a lowercase "D"? WWE Draft appears to be the proper name of the event. Shouldn't the "D" be capitalized? WWE capitalizes it. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So do the NBA, NFL and other sports leagues. But all out articles have lowercase titles because a couple of MOS-jockeys who think they know everything have a real hard time distinguishing between use of words as common and proper nouns. Frankly, it's not worth the fight. oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the draft-related articles I could to their grammatically correct locations. The only one I couldn't was the main one, WWE draft, due to a redirect already existing at WWE Draft. I requested that redirect's deletion with {{db-move}} and will move it when it's done. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That's WWE that does that and this is Wikipedia if you haven't noticed that yet. Borikén (talk · ctb) 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do realize this is Wikipedia. And as it is Wikipedia, we rely heavily on proper grammar and listening to the sources. The fact of the matter is, the event is named WWE Draft. It is a proper name the same as if it was the Super Bowl. Or if you were talking to someone named John Smith. It's a proper name. And the sources support this stance. We follow them. Sources also support the D's in MLB Draft and NBA Draft being capitalized as well. But that is a matter for their WikiProjects. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not a proper noun. As the typical lead indicates, it's a "process". If the WWE also names a TV show or an event after their draft, that's really not what the article is about. It's about the draft, lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The Draft is an event. It may not be the name of the show the event takes place at, but it's the proper name of the event. CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Rolling Stone, PWTorch, ProWrestling.net. They all support it's treatment as a proper name of an event. Just like the WWE Slammy Awards usually are an event on an episode of WWE Raw. But it's the proper name of the event, so it's capitalized. So too should WWE Draft be capitalized. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
CBS only caps it in their headline; ProWrestling's "The WWE Draft edition of Smackdown Live" is a production; and PW Torch with "eligible Draft picks" and Fox with "their Draft selection" are indications of sources that just like caps; and the Rolling Stone says "the NFL draft", so hardly on your side there. You'd need to do a lot better than that to make any kind of case for caps. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dicklyon. And even discounting the use of title case in titles and subtitles, a proportion capped is no reason to go along with the lowest standards of English. You'd need a really substantial majority of usage out there in main text, not titular, to push the case for capping. Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford NHR both say to minimise unnecessary capitalisation. Tony (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is 9 more for you: WWE.com, Wrestle Zone, USA Today, NESN, IGN, Wrestling Inc., ESPN, Mirror, philly.com. All of these sources used the capitalized version when using the WWE Draft name. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Sites with nothing but headlines, forum sites, and sites that say things like "the Draft" don't really help your case. Edited books that use it in a sentence, like this one, and this one, and this one, often use lowercase, as in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't keep moving the goal posts. I've provided you with 14 sources that in some way or another support my position, and you keep dismissing them. Granted, some are better than others, but it almost seems to be that your counter argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What is "idon'tlikeit" about facts? Tony (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
True, nobody disputes that some sources capitalize Draft. But the goal posts are set per MOS:CAPS. If usage is mixed, caps are not necessary, so we don't. Many of your sources really do not even support your contention that they would treat WWE draft as a proper noun, since they have it only in headlines, or they capitalize lots more than proper nouns, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Use lower-case. Actually reliable sources do not consistently capitalize this, in running prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And the lede treats it as generic already, in "The WWE draft is a process". Not "it's a show" or something that might be interpretable as a composition title. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It's an event that includes a process, just like many recurring sports events. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Use lower-case. What the user Dicklyon is trying to tell to TrueCRaysball is the same thing that I was trying to tell him but he kept reverting my edits, also he moved the page 2016 WWE Draft before discussing it first. Borikén (talk · ctb) 18:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I only reverted you twice and asked you to come discus it, which we did. As for moving the article without discussing it, that's well within the rules if I feel the move is uncontroversial, which I did. And once I was proved wrong, it was rightly moved back for discussion, which we're doing now. Please quit trying to make it sound like I somehow violated procedure. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You never asked me to discuss it the only thing you did was put a warning on my talk page and "I did discuss it, you should check talk pages before you revert." and I never accused you of violating anything. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 08:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

List of current WWE tag teams and stables - Introductory

The introductory paragraph on this page is misleading as it is simply a copy-and-paste of the introductory to List of WWE Personnel. I tried to edit the title before getting consensus. I apologize for it, but I would like to offer now, that this introduction is used:

In professional wrestling, a tag team is a team of wrestlers who fight as a team, fighting alternatively and a stable is a group of three or more wrestlers who regularly fight together. In the latter's case, usually two members of the stable fight in a tag team match. This is a list of all tag teams and stables who regularly fight as a team and are apart of the roster of American professional wrestling promotion, WWE.

The list is sorted into teams from WWE's main roster television shows, Raw and SmackDown and the promotion's developmental territory, WWE NXT. The list of NXT tag teams and stables will also be sorted into those that can appear on its television events, and those that only appear at non-televised events.

Each table also includes the managers, valets and former members if such members existed. The list also includes current WWE and NXT Tag Team Champions, The New Day and The Revival, respectively.

I also think that this page should be deleted altogether, because no other promotion as an article like this. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect sounds like the way to go. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@0737290632t2x273n and MPJ-DK: page redirected per suggestions of the other editors. starship.paint ~ KO 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just had to redirect again, Someone moved it back. May have to get a protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

So, List of WWE tag teams and stables now redirects to List of wrestling tag teams and stables#Active under the active section. Shouldn't it be under the WWE Section? 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE World Championship title

The "WWE Championship" has been renamed "WWE World Championship" on the WWE website. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling - World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version)

These two pages are very similar and anyone reading one can get the same information from the other. I suggest the List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling be merged into the World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version). Any one searching for the former will be redirected to the "Reigns" section under the latter. Currently, that section only explains how it was inaugurated and when it was retired, so the table present in the former can be moved to this "Reigns" section. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. But what do I know? lol CrashUnderride 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge, there is not enough information in the list article to warrant it being split out. Togerher there is the basis for a really interesting GA or even FA on the subject.  MPJ-DK  22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, "Live event" is a WWEism. Should say "house show". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am about to publish a new edit for World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version) that includes all the same information of List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling, but could someone delete the list article? I'm not sure how. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't delete pages that get merged (can't, actually, as the edit history needs to be preserved for licensing reasons), but instead turn it into a redirect to the other article. When saving the edit for the expande article, make sure to mention the list article in the edit summary. At the list article, replace the entire article text with this #REDIRECT [[World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version)]] and mention that it is being merged in the edit summary. That way everything is covered regarding the attributions in the merge. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sin Cara

The Sin Cara article, in my opinion, is really, really redundant. The character has only been portrayed by two wrestlers and the sections that divide the two people that portrayed Sin Cara are almost exactly the same compared to their respective main articles. Take La Parka for example. There is no La Parka article that shows the info between the two "portrayers", but there is La Parka and La Parka II. Is it really necessary to have an article for a character that has only been portrayed by two people and has the exact same info on their main respective articles in their respective sections like Sin Cara? In my opinion, Sin Cara should be redirected to Hunico, with a hatnote on top that distinguishes the two, directing it to Místico. Thoughts? Sekyaw (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

After looking it over as well Gonna have to agree that Sin Cara should be directed at Hunico with a hatnote for Mistico. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's enough to warrant a separate article. Maybe Doink the Clown would be a good parallel. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I would take note how the two La Parka articles are, La Parka and La Parka II. Why not redirect Sin Cara to Mistico and move Hunico to Sin Cara II? CrashUnderride 06:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember having this discussion a few years ago. We decided on a separate article because Kendo Nagasaki and (at the time) Suicide (wrestling) are wrestling characters portrayed by two different wrestlers and they have separate articles.LM2000 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The Suicide character had similar move-sets at the time, with both wrestlers using the Suicide Solution finisher, as well as other similar moves if I'm not mistaken. The two Sin Cara wrestlers have somewhat different move-sets, making it two very different wrestlers just using the Sin Cara name (same goes with La Parka). Sekyaw (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Moves sets are rather trivial reasons to split them. if anything, I would expect two wrestlers playing the same character to use a similar move set. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's trivial. I even questioned myself right after made this. Sekyaw (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, I see no relevance in keeping the Sin Cara article mainly as the character itself has no relevance and only has so much volume just because of a copy/paste from its respective wrestlers' portrayal, which should mainly be on the wrestler's main article anyway. Sekyaw (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's good reasons to keep a separate article on the Sin Cara identity. The main one being the two Sin Caras storyline, which was specifically about the identity, not specific to either wrestler. Also, if we were to redirect to Hunico, then we'd probably have to move Hunico to Sin Cara as the most common name, which then just confuses the issue further. No, the real solution is to trim the week-by-week recaps from the article so it's not redundant and make it Solely focused on the identity. And such trimming is something we need to do in wrestling articles a lot more anyway. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of the character's history is specific to one wrestler, with the only thing being the two Sin Cara storyline, which isn't enough to warrant a separate article and can be easily seen on either article without it being an issue. A short feud shouldn't have a separate article (whereas this is the main thing about the Sin Cara character), but should be shown on their respective articles. Also, moving or redirecting Sin Cara to either wrestler shouldn't be an issue if it's handled like La Parka. Where Sin Cara redirects/moves to can be discussed. Sekyaw (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other thoughts on the Sin Cara article? Again, I see no relevance in the character other than the two respective wrestlers portraying it and the short feud between two Sin Cara's, which I believe isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Sekyaw (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there's enough precedent for this sort of thing. I'll throw Black Tiger and Tiger Mask onto the existing pile of clowns, skeletons, samurai and nutjobs. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding brands on wrestling articles

So since all of this brand split happen and multiple editors began adding the brand where they were drafted to on the wrestlers pages, is it really necessary to add this because you know they already work for WWE but adding the brands on the top of its page is certainly not necessary about since it would be also on her full wrestling history also because this kind of editors just add the things they saw on the programs from WWE so I don't really think this is necessary some help to close this case ? Thanks.TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 03:56, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

As user:LM2000 said before It was already discussed with the last brand split to add them, You are the only editor who keeps removing it from the 50+ articles today because you think it isn't important but it is to the less informed fan or a new fan who is using Wikipedia for information. When something like this has been added by an X amount of editors to different articles there is a pretty good bet it should be there. Do you also understand that every revert you preformed today on these 50+ articles will now have to be fixed again if this consensus is to add the info?Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course is necessary. It's like Samoa Joe working in NXT. They are signed with WWE and assigned to one brand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
We listed the brands in the lede during the last brand split and we should do it for this one. It's sort of like which teams athletes play on... you not only have to mention that Kevin Durant plays in the NBA, you have to also say that he plays for a specific team in the league. There are different brands now and most wrestlers will only appear on one of them, we have to note that.LM2000 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
What LM2000 said. I couldn't put it any better. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I third what LM2000 said. CrashUnderride 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and oppose the inclusions of the brands in the lead. They're purely WP:INUNIVERSE and far too easily changed, despite all the hype about guys meeting "for the last time". Nonsense. We all know, based on history from the prior split, that brand assignments are hardly permanent and entirely too temporary. So, count me as against. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So are which team a player belongs to. I don't see how they in-universe. Sure, it's storyline. But so is the fact they're champions. Or their ring names. It's no different. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll drink to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick question though. The Raw television show is italicized but is the Raw brand? I don't remember us using italics for brands in the past but I'm seeing them used in some articles this time.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just because we live in troubled times. As nature has always intended, italics are for shows, albums, paintings and occasionally stressing things. The Raw and SmackDown brands are just like the Eastern and Western Conferences in the NHL. Nice and straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about redirects

Earlier today, I tried submitting List of Continental Wrestling Federation alumni and List of Gulf Coast Championship Wrestling alumni to WP:AFC as redirects to List of Continental Championship Wrestling alumni. I provided a source for each but they were both were rejected. The editor basically said no one would ever type in those exact titles but it also doesn't make since to have separate lists since both CWF and GCCW wrestlers are already listed at the CCW. There's plenty of similar redirects (e.g. List of World Wide Wrestling Federation alumni to List of WWE alumni) and these are hardly obscure promotions. 72.74.207.230 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a case of too much bureaucracy. The fact that they were requested indicated that they are plausible redirects, so I created them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the assistance. List of Mid-South Wrestling alumni could also be redirected to List of Universal Wrestling Federation alumni (Bill Watts) since it covers both the Mid-South and UWF years. 72.74.204.52 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes has been nominated for discussion

Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles bot

The New articles bot has been updated to scan for Professional wrestling related articles. The list is at User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult. The list can be added to a project page using one the methods listed here. --Bamyers99 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bob Holly/IC reign

An IP has been edit warring on the list of IC champions over a content dispute that has been going on for years regarding Bob Holly's status as unrecognized IC Champion. Please chime in at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment.LM2000 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation regarding the IPs, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500. ECW500 was before my time but judging from his long-term abuse page, I'm assuming many of you remember him. Please help yourself if you have anything to add.LM2000 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What Culture Pro Wrestling

The article was re-created....again. Yes, the "article" was created for a third time in a month. But this time it was on the old article's talk page. I've nominated it for deletion. So, should I really quote "Broken" Matt Hardy here? Sure, "Delete! Delete! Delete! Delete!" CrashUnderride 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw that in Cody Rhodes yesterday. It made me so angry, I couldn't even delete it, though it was sourced to a tweet and YouTube video (without titles!). I'm afraid the rage has me paralyzed on this, too. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'm fine with the mention in the Rhodes' article. But the WCPW article has been deleted three times in less than one month. The repeated recreation of and thrice deleted article is my problem. CrashUnderride 21:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I say this is probably notable. I'm a fan of what culture and I've been following their creation of this promotion and looking at the range of exposure, this may actually be notable. It is different than most indy feds. It may be too soon for creation though, but in time it may justify an article.--WillC 08:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In time maybe, but not now. It's been deleted multiple times in the last month. I have a copy of a good quality version of the original article. Feel free to work on it until WCPW is notable enough. Like you, I love What Culture Wrestling and WCPW. CrashUnderride 16:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Which is crazy when you consider that the site is used as a reference hundreds of times around Wikipedia alone. It's a reliable source, apparently, but not notable enough for an article?!? oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Oknazevad: - Bleacher Report and Wrestlezone have also been used hundreds of times around Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that's a good measure for reliability. Bleacher does have an article too. Plus, there was an incident with What Culture parroting an invented claim from Reddit, that shows its quality. starship.paint ~ KO 01:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Eh, no one's perfect. Remember, What Culture is more than just a wrestling site/webseries, though that does seem to be its most popular area, but a general pop culture news and opinion site, not unlike Nerdist. I'm honestly somewhat amazed that it isn't covered at all. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: that "contributor" happens to work for What Culture. He's also the guy whose voice you hear in the video. He's also done commentary for WCPW. So, yeah, there's that. He's not some "contributor" like some websites like, is it, Buzzfeed or Fox News that lets people post articles but marks them as "not vetted" or some such. It's actually an employee of the company. CrashUnderride 04:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
WC's videos aren't that clickbaity honestly. At least the wrestling ones, I'm subscribed and watch a lot. But the video I'm talking about is the one you linked: 10 Ruthless Aggression Era WWE Superstars You Totally Don't Remember. CrashUnderride 05:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops. My bad. So that's linked to their YouTube channel. The thing is, why should we take these guys as a reliable source instead of the hundreds or thousands of YouTube commentators out there? It's like, I would consider Max Landis' YouTube videos on wrestling a good source for opinion since he's worked with films and television, and WWE is something akin to theatre. But guys on What Culture? starship.paint ~ KO 05:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about that. I was just clarifying that that "contributor" actually worked for them. lol. CrashUnderride 15:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't whether What Culture is reliable (we're not talking about whether is should continue to be used as a source), but whether it is notable, and should have an article. The former has no bearing on the latter; Page Six, the gossip column, is notoriously full of pot-stirring BS, but it is notable because others have written about it. Even if What Culture gets stuff wrong sometimes (and even the New York Times does that), the fact that other reliable sources have written about What Culture's influence makes it notable. That said, discussions about whether the site as a whole is notable are outside the scope of the project. We're really only concerned with their startup wrestling promotion. Which, despite being like a month and a half old, may be the most widely known British promotion in the world. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Text book example: The Social Outcasts

I believe that The Social Outcasts is a textbook example of why we don't just rush in and create articles for any and all teams the WWE puts together since they were basically together for a lukewarm cup of coffee and now are spread all over. A footnote in individual articles, not actually something that should have its own.  MPJ-DK  22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Until I fixed it, most of the article talked about the problems in Adam Rose's life. This edit explains all you really need to know about the group.LM2000 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
And I haven't watched regularly in awhile so I was shocked to find that a thing called Breezango exists. WWE didn't care about them when they gave them the dumbest portmanteau I have ever seen so we probably shouldn't care either.LM2000 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Social Outcasts AFD'd. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Promo Azteca

Hi everyone,

I wrote Promo Azteca awhile ago and was hoping for some advice on Draft:List of Promo Azteca alumni. I created a separate page for the alumni section because the AFC submission screen wouldn't load when I originally posted the full article. This seemed to be the most logical choice since there's already a category for similar lists. WikiProject Professional wrestling's MOS guide didn't cover alumni lists so I used other lucha libre rosters and WP:PW's featured lists as a guide (as opposed to just having a bullet list of names) and used many of the reliable sources recommended by your project.

The article was rejected as a "meaningless list" a few weeks ago but the reviewer didn't offer any advice on improving it. I don't understand what I did incorrectly or how it specifically qualifies as "listcruft". Do I need to add more sources or should I just merge it to the main article? I'm interested in bringing Promo Azteca up to a GA-class article but adding back the alumni list, as it appears in the preview screen, makes the article overly large and clunky (not to mention very slow loading!). Could this be a potential issue for a GA nomination?

On a sidenote, I submitted the company's logo (via ProWrestlingHistory.com) to WP:IFU around the time Promo Azteca was created. One user wanted me to post the image link but when you click the logo it takes you to another page. I had to describe what the logo looked like and provided an alternate example. It's still sitting there two months later. Could someone from the project take a look at it? It uses the same fair use rationale as File:Logo-CMLL-10.png so I didn't think there would be an issue.

Thanks for your time. 72.74.205.248 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, well

So, after 16 straight edits removing content from the List of professional wrestling promotions page, I've given 2601:586:4402:310:E907:3AF2:438E:361 one and only warning, based on the amount of times they removed things from the article. Just wanted to let people know of their behavior. CrashUnderride 13:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus to adopt GaryColemanFan's proposal "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF".

Editors suggested revisions to GaryColemanFan's proposal like InedibleHulk's "The card featured ten matches with results predetermined by WWF-scripted storylines". But there is insufficient discussion about the revisions to determine whether there is consensus to adopt or reject them. I recommend that editors implement GaryColemanFan's proposal, boldly make revisions to it if needed, and open a new discussion if there is any dispute about those changes.

Cunard (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following disclaimer appears on professional wrestling event articles: The event consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. Is this (or any) disclaimer necessary for people with little knowledge of the subject? Would linking to Professional wrestling and scripted be a suitable alternative?LM2000 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll put forward the same idea that was almost universally ignored last time: at the end of the lead paragraph, I add: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF". It's succinct, fits with the flow of the prose, and doesn't distract from the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I like Gary's idea, aside from using "result" for the beginnings and ends. Maybe "revolved around", "based on", "made from" or something for the first part. Faces and heels can be Wikilinked the first time we mention who was who in a match. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've notified other wikiprojects of this discussion and the RfC bot sent out its notifications, hopefully we'll get more input than the usual suspects. If not, I'd support Gary's idea, it's the most succinct proposal and doesn't hurt the flow of the article as much as some other options.LM2000 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Responding to RfC - As an outsider's opinion, I have to say that SOME disclaimer is absolutely necessary in an encyclopedic article. Doing some reading on it, it appears that the scripted nature of professional wrestling used to be a guarded trade secret and not widely known or acknowledged... now it is acknowledged, and most fans are pretty much aware that everything is scripted... but the shows themselves do not disclose this within the show, whether in the credits or otherwise, and it is still presented as if real. Given this, it is still possible for someone watching pro wrestling to be confused about the actual reality of events, and we need to make it clear from the getgo.
As far as wording goes, the RfC's specific proposal (the current wording) is... a bit unwieldy. Gary's proposal looks clear, simple, and well written. It's just better prose. I have no objections to it. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Again I propose the more in-your-face Professional wrestlers perform as characters, wrestling in choreographed matches as part of scripted storylines. Pinging Fieari (thank you very much for weighing in) - would this be better or worse than Gary's proposed text? starship.paint ~ KO 10:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't ping me, but I think it's worse. Gary's includes the number of matches on the particular card, which flows naturally in the lead and solves the "same old thing popping up everywhere" annoyance. Serves the same purpose without suddenly interrupting readers with an explicit spiel. It's why people don't ignore embedded marketing like they do with regular ad breaks. We're not selling the impressive roominess of the 2016 Dodge Durango, but we are selling an idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that Gary's is the best proposal for the same reasons.LM2000 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Gonna have to say I don't care for it being there period but if it must be done then I'm going with Gary's Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, Gary's is much smoother and more easily integrated. Would just tweak it to avoid the repetition, like Hulk says. So, say "The event featured X matches revolving around scripted storylines and had results predetermined by [such-and-such promotion]. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would propose: "The card featured ten matches, with predetermined-results from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF". Very similar to Gary's with a few small changes. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC) The below proposal is better. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
A bit redundant. Any problems with "The card featured ten matches with results predetermined by WWF-scripted storylines"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah fair enough InedibleHulk; I think your wording is better. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Still packed with just as much of the flavour of Gary's original grape goodness, but packaged in a recyclable, easy-to-store container, for today's busy reader. 0% fat aside, I think your username is better than mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As a non-editor of wrestling articles, I've always found these kinds of statements humorously overkill. We don't precede the plot of Guys & Dolls with a description of the fictional nature of musicals. If you're writing is adequate, it will be clear from the content that professional wrestling is scripted. I'm also of the belief that anyone looking up something like Unforgiven (2006) won't be someone who could be misled into thinking a violent gang known as DX actually committed criminal damage against their boss's limousine SFB 18:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    Guys and Dolls doesn't pretend to be anything other than a scripted movie or musical. People new to the event may think it's more like boxing without some sort of a disclaimer that' it's fiction.
  • I've been trying to get rid of this for years because I find it extremely annoying, redundant, and unnecessary. "See also: Professional wrestling" at the beginning of the background section as a hatnote works fine for me. However, if we must have something to acknowledge the nature of pro wrestling, Gary's proposal seems best and should go as the last sentence in the lead. Leave the background section for actual background of the event. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Responding to RfC Gary's sentence seems fitting based on my review of everything. Concurring with what's stated above, I also think Gary's sentence would fit in well at the end of the lead. While I agree with SFB that the disclaimer is humors twosome degree, I would not necessarily deem them as overkill.I think it is important to remember your audience for an article such as this one. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro
  • Comment - Came here to ask a question and saw this. I'd have to agree with the sentiment that Sillyfolkboy presented. We seem to have no problem presenting any other type of fictional entertainment without a massive disclaimer. What's next? "Pinocchio is not real. Please do not attempt to get swallowed by a whale. The flow of the story was due to a predetermined plot of the author"? I think the audience is pretty well aware that the whole thing is entertainment, and frankly, this is patronizing to the audience we should be considering. It's going to lead to a lot of people going "well, duh" and removing the disclaimer. MSJapan (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I never thought I would comment on a wrestling article here at wikipedia, but it popped up on my talk page. Someone mentioned that it's "scripted" nature used to be a closely guarded secret. I can tell you that watching it in the 60's and 70's every adult knew it was scripted. It may have been a secret but no one believed it was anything else but acting... like Roller Derby. BUT... kids both then and today often think it's real, and they read wikipedia and use it in school projects. I think a change is warranted and I feel that Gary's "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF" would work pretty well. It's not obtrusive yet it tells the fact it's scripted acting for anyone that isn't fully aware. It's sort of like cryptozoology where everything related to it on wikipedia has the disclaimer that it is not a true science but rather a pseudoscience. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The RfC expired but was never closed. It seems a consensus is forming around Gary's proposal. Can we agree on this and move on?LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Italicizing move names in PPV articles' Event sections

This came up at the WK9 FAC when GaryColemanFan reviewed. I wrote this style in the article: "... a Kokeshi diving headbutt from Honma", italicizing the Kokeshi move name, because it's done so in the wrestler's In wrestling section as a special name and not the technical name (diving headbutt). So, do you all think the italicization is needed in article text? starship.paint ~ KO 06:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Well in this case yes because Kokeshi is a foreign language word not commonly used in English per the MOS "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts."  MPJ-DK  07:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
For English moves, it's definitely weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well the italics is for foreign langauge terms such as Los Ingobernables or medio careja in general, not because they are move names. Only exception is ring names such as "El Felino", should not he italicized. So it is not a double standard, nothing should be italicized because it is a move name. Only if there is another reason to do so.  MPJ-DK  16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What he said. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Share the love, fight the apathy

So it's probably not a surprise to anyone that the pro wrestling articles get very little respect and recognition outside of those that are already fans of it. But unfortunately that also means that most often wrestling articles who are Feature Article Candidates, Feature List Candidates and Good/Feature Topic Candidate die on the vine for lack of people participating in the process. I just had the Mexican National Women's Championship fail due to inactivity, not due to opposes and the same happened to Wrestle Kingdom 9 that has been nominated for FA three times (or is it four) and not passed three times, not because of opposition but because of lack of attention. I am not advocating going to just give a support comment, but please help review and comment on these to help improve the quality of each candidate. /Shameless plug  MPJ-DK  02:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Glaring weakness

The WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship (only one of the most important world titles in wrestling) has never had an image of the belt in its infobox. Here it is: [3]. Could someone please add this to the article under fair use, akin to the AWA World, WWA World, WWE Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team Championships? Thanks. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Not too well versed in Fair Use, i was surprised to see Fair Use claims for currently active championships. Is that actually okay to do?  MPJ-DK  17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Free is preferred, but in its absence fair use is employed. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Any and all images of title belts are technically non-free, as they're derivative 2-D works of a copyrighted 3-D object. So with no free alternative possible, might as well use ones from the copyright holder in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Not so sure about that. There are two copyrights in such photos, the photographer's one and the object's one. Under WP:FREER, photos where at least the photo aspect is free are preferred to photos where both object and photo are non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So? 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:45B6:6A64:BF3A:A418 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:45B6:6A64:BF3A:A418 doesn't understand copyrights. lol CrashUnderride 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Lolololzycoptersaurus. Fair use images are used all over the wrestling section, as previously stated. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:45B6:6A64:BF3A:A418 (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
But there are some with copyrights that make that difficult. We try to find the images with the fewest copyrights on it for legal reasons. CrashUnderride 02:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Trying is the first step. If we try hard enough and can't find a free one, and the article needs one, we claim fair use on two things. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, there's a way to get an image of the belt on Wikipedia. Photobucket user FernanElFather19 has posted a photo of a replica WWC Universal belt;[4] per PB's terms, all images uploaded to its servers are completely free and users wave all rights to them.[5] So, could someone please up this image, in the style of the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) image? Thanks. 185.54.163.204 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  • WHOA! they waive all rights as long as it is not for commercial use? I never knew that.  MPJ-DK  02:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's now uploaded. Warlock82 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Naomi and Cameron.

Naomi (wrestler) was recently moved to Naomi Knight when nobody responded to a RM. I started a new one at Talk:Naomi Knight#Requested move 23 August 2016. There's an ongoing one on Talk:Cameron (wrestler)#Requested move 22 August 2016, where Ranze wants it moved to Cameron Lynn again.LM2000 (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Tag team AfDs

For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current AfDs, all of which are tag teams.

Sekyaw (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

INT/RD proposals

The criteria for recent death nominations has recently changed, per Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. Anybody with a standalone article is considered notable enough for inclusion, discussion focuses only on article quality. Bockwinkel, Gange, and Rhodes probably would've been posted under this criteria.LM2000 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Today I learned Dick Beyer didn't die a while back. He could use some sourcing, and Raven could use a picture of Raven instead of some guy's uncle. Goldust is a bit messy, but they'll have to let him in. He's Hollywood famous. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If I'm reading the RFC and associated discussion correctly, this means that we'd better get cracking on that Randy Mulkey article so that it will be ready, 'cause Mulkeymania is still fucking running wild. Ahem. As for Raven, I saw a pic in the infobox which looked like him, but also looked like some guy's uncle. Perhaps they're one and the same and that's what you meant? There's a photo of Levy in character further down the article which I feel is more appropriate to depict him for what's he's best known for, but could be considered objectionable to some members of a general audience. Since you mentioned that: I love how this "photo of Bob Armstrong" has proliferated across the encyclopedia, despite the fact that it's sorely lacking in any depiction of Bob Armstrong, yet people act as if it's perfectly normal to mislead readers like that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I see Bob Armstrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Jack Handey once said if you look at an old man, then at a photo of him when he was a young man, then the old man, then back to the photo, pretty soon you'll do whatever anyone tells you. I don't know about that, but maybe the young guy's nose and eyes are a bit bigger than they should be. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Best manager ever. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Right off the bat, I spot problems:
  1. The lead reads like perfunctory content which exists for the sake of saying the article contains a lead section. It's neither the least bit informative nor the least bit reflective of the article body.
  2. Much of the article's sourced content merely repeats match results. This in spite of (in general) WP:INDISCRIMINATE and (specifically) the incongruity of having so many articles which fill up content with match results while a great many other articles are regularly deleted largely on that basis.
  3. A fair amount of unsourced content, including multiple cn tags. Speaking to one such passage, it's highly misleading to compare him at all to Yoshiaki Fujiwara. The only thing those two have in common is a shared surname and profession.
  4. No mention of Fuji as a seriously hellbent ribber, despite the fact that this is the one aspect of his career mentioned perhaps more than anything else during his retirement years. In fact, as I started writing this, I was sitting at Buns & Nubile browsing a copy of Pat Patterson's autobiography, Accepted. I made it as far as his days in the San Francisco territory before the place closed for the evening. Patterson described one episode wherein he ribbed Pedro Morales, despite the fact that no one ribbed Pedro Morales and got away it. Reference the conversation between Ric Flair and Ron Simmons where Flair asked Simmons about people fucking with him, only to be met with a response of "I'm unfuckable". Anyway, Patterson wrote that when Morales discovered the rib, the boys in the back immediately turned to Fuji-san, which took a load off of his mind. This is more or less the same story told by Muraco about Fuji during the HoF induction, only the exact circumstances were different.
  5. I don't believe I saw a single thing in the article which didn't pertain to Fuji as a wrestler. In other words, you can't exactly call something so one-dimensional a "biography". When you consider that Tojo Yamamoto was originally from Hawaii, played a villainous Japanese wrestling character and wound up in Tennessee in later life, I would be curious to know if it was mere coincidence that Fuji followed that exact same path or if there was possibly a reason why. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Some football playing wrestlers

There seem to be a few active editors on the wrestling front. I figured I would ask for help on those articles which spread over into your realm, e. g. Doug Wycoff and Bill Middlekauff, or Cy Williams or Frank Speer. Cake (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com redesign

Is anyone else noticing that a lot of old URLs are dying off and not displaying properly because of this lagfest? Just displaying a "WWE: Premier Shows" overview? Where possible I'm hoping archive.org could come to the rescue, but otherwise perhaps it's possible to find them in a different format via the new archive setups at http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/archive curious hidden at the bottoms of their pages? The impression I've gotten is even viewing these they seem to have merged some things together instead of having distinct page URLs like they used to.

As follow-up... is anyone even able to navigate these archive pages? I click it and there's this drop-down menu with years but when I click the years nothing happens. Ranze (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive.org should be able to help out. They're good about that. I've found captures of WCW.com from the like '98-'01, so they should be able to get more recent stuff from WWE.com. You click the year, then it breaks it down to month and the days of the month that they have archived. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Current WWE Championships template

I propose that the WWE Championships template gets changed to the same format as the WWE Personnel template and have each brands championships sorted into a similar fashion.

Example:

Raw:
Primary: WWE Universal
Secondary: WWE United States
Divisional: WWE Tag Team . WWE Women's

SmackDown:
Primary: WWE World
Secondary: WWE Intercontinental
Divisional: SmackDown Tag Team . SmackDown Women's

NXT:
Primary: NXT
Divisional: NXT Tag Team . NXT Women's

Accomplishments: Ect.

I would do it myself but I'm not totally skilled with templates, I just like to see your opinion. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did it in the styleof {{WWE personnel}}, please tell me if I did anything wrong or if something could be improved. Pinguinn 🐧 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I object to such a change as proposed. It would create subgroupings with only one item, e.g.Group "RAW" with the subgroups "primary" (sole item: WWE Universal), "secondary" (sole item: WWE United States) and "divisional" (two items: WWE Tag Team, WWE Women's). Also, the categories are not really solid. I dread someone coming up "tertiary".
The only fesible way to do this would be if we could create two-dimensional grid, e.g.
Brand       Primary       Secondary         Divisional
Raw         Universal     United States     Women's  Tag Team
Smackdown   World         Intercontinental  Women's  Tag Team
NXT         NXT                             Women's  Tag Team
But I think that is very hard to achieve syntaxwise and frankly not worth the trouble. Str1977 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Look at the already-edited template, and you'll see that your concerns are addressed. It groups by brand, but does nit slides ribs the titles as any particular division or primacy. oknazevad (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I had already looked at it and I am fine with the current version. I was responding to the proposal above just in case someone actually attempted to implement it.
I have no clue what you mean by "but does nit slides ribs the titles" but maybe I don't need to know. Str1977 (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, autocorrect has really been playing havoc on me lately! That was supposed to be "but does not ascribe the titles to any particular division of primacy (other than the order in which they're listed). oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

We've had a couple of redirects created by Ranze that I've brought to RfC, they include Madame McMahon, Unicorn Freaks, Raw Champ and Raw Champion. You can voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Unicorn Freaks.LM2000 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

New set of Rfds listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7. They include: Rybotch, Cryback, Big E Jackson, Dawn of the Altitude Era and The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking.LM2000 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh My f'n God. This is beyond mine comprension. As Broken Matt says, DELETE, DELETE.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: you seem someone as well-versed if not more well-versed than I am, so I find it implausible that you are unaware of these names having been used.

In special:diff/738267050 when you declare "not real nicknames" I am worried about either your memory or honesty. Ranze (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on responses like the one above, I've started a discussion about Ranze's behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ranze on pro wrestling articles. I've requested a topic ban for him on professional wrestling articles.LM2000 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze has been topic banned from editing wrestling articles, as well as from creating and editing redirects.[6] If you see him do either, report it to WP:ANI.LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How does that effect any prior redirects or talk page discussions they are in? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 06:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Anything he has already done can't be counted against him but I do not believe he can continue any ongoing discussions. If he does I'll ask the admin that closed the ANI thread to look into it.LM2000 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisionist history agenda plaguing the pro wrestling section on Wikipedia?

What's with the WWF Championship being renamed "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" all over Wikipedia? On WWF TV in the 90s, the title was clearly referred to as the "WWF Championship". I challenge anyone to find a Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels/Diesel clip where they are described as the "WWF World Heavyweight Champion". Didn't happen, although the articles of those men (and numerous others) are now permeated by this new wording. WCW announcers very much DID call their titleholder "World Heavyweight Champion", but WWF ones didn't.

Is there a revisionist history agenda plaguing, and undermining the credibility of, the pro wrestling section here on Wiki? 185.54.163.136 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen "Heavyweight" added into the Intercontinental Championship's name as well, and there's an ongoing discussion over whether WWE dropped "Heavyweight" from the US Championship after they acquired it (Talk:WWE United States Championship#Did the title's name change in 2001 when the WWF purchased WCW?). Announcers never used "Heavyweight" in the name but they don't count as WP:RS. What do WP:RS say about these names?LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Doing site searches for both "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" and "WWF Championship" at the long-running, wrestling-dedicated publications – pwinsider.com, pwtorch.com, thehistoryofwwe.com, canoe.com and pwi-online.com (on Google using the 'site:' method) – there's a comparable number of hits for both names, albeit with a tendency toward the latter. At prowrestling.net, "WWF Championship" is much more common.
Yes, the physical "winged eagle" belt did indeed have "heavyweight" etched on it, but so did the WCW and ECW straps, and WWF/E omitted that term from the official title names (save for a brief period following the ECW title's exhumation). Heck, the current WWE World Championship belt has "heavyweight" printed on it and that's no longer part of the title name. Google Image browsing shows that WWF event posters and VHS covers from the 80s and 90s (and the one WWF magazine cover I can see where the title is mentioned [7]) consistently refer to the "WWF Championship". 185.54.163.236 (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
A big part of the discussion on the US title relies on the fact that "Heavyweight" was written on the WCW belt, so they believe the name wasn't changed. Like you, I don't find this piece of evidence convincing. The sources you list above are more reliable than Wrestling-Titles.com, which is what we've used in the past.LM2000 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That is one part of the argument. The other part is that there is zero reliable evidence for a name change. Pointing to the unproven fact that WWF/WWE commentators never said "US heavyweight champion" is not enough.
The accusation above of "revisionism" is also wrongheaded. The title represented by the Winged Eagle belt was occasionally called "World" and frequently "Heavyweight" champion. The belt contained the world. Any claim that there was a name change in 1998 (under Austin) rests on the identification of the title's name by belt inscription.
The omission of "Heavyweight", which happened to quite a few titles, was an overall trend across pro-wrestling, not some clear-cut decision of this or that promotion to change the names.
In Wikipedia terms all this however is beside the point. There is no source for such name changes and hence we leave them out. Str1977 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Two wwe title templates

There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. We can't have two of these, one is enough, so which one are we gonna keep and delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete first, keep second. --JDC808 ♫ 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The firs is way too bloated and a template listing all the current champs seems unecessary to me. Str1977 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Plus the current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch, and that template will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ. It's a maintenance nightmare and exactly the reason we long ago chose not to list the current champion in the second navbox. Remove and delete. Oh, and the same with the "me too" TNA one. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the unneeded, redundant, new template from all pages that transcluded it except AJ Styles (because that's currently locked) and User:Aleuuhhmsc's sandbox draft of the Universal Championship article (he should probably clear that, but I don't mess with other people's sandboxes unless invited). We can delete them safely, I think. There's certainly a consensus against using them in this conversation. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Column

Should the cruiserweights get their own separate column on List of WWE personnel? Similar to List of New Japan Pro Wrestling personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.188.49 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Depends on how much they treat the division as a separate group. We'll have to see, starting Monday. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? Tag teams have a separate section, but the members who have their own articles are listed with everyone else. Why should cruiserweights be treated differently? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of the template. lol. I think it's fine the way it is now. Honestly, I don't even seen a need to denote "Cruiserweight" in the notes column. If we're gonna do that, why don't we list Big E, Xavier Woods and Kofi Kingston as "Members of The New Day", etc.? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 01:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesse Ventura

Notifying the project of this discussion, seeing as how the article's wrestling-related infobox and image were removed during the timeframe that warring in general over images has been going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Championship

Is this the same belt? Main page of WWE site says First champion which to me says no.--WillC 03:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  • yep It is not the same belt.--WillC 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Wait and see for the title history to show up on the superstars page. In keeping with recent practice, c.f. the (now-Raw) Women's title, it may very well be considered a new championship, but we'll see. It certainly is a new belt, but the real question is it a new championship (just a gentle rib ;-). oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"It was there that Triple H put the brand-new WWE Cruiserweight Championship around his waist, in front of a worldwide audience that now recognized him as the winner of the inaugural WWE Cruiserweight Championship."--WillC 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a new championship, as per WWE's official title history. --JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm sick and tired of them naming a championship after a previous one. I mean, why not bring back the one that actually has a history??? Personally, I'd rather hold the title with more history than be the first to hold a new title. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree, Crash Underride. But they - and not only they - are enamored by the words "first ever". (Well, some to that extent that they actually write "second ever". Str1977 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Lets leave the Hornswoggle tarnished belt in the trash where it belongs now.--WillC 06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Current champions TfDs

For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current TfDs, which include Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:Current TNA Champions. You can post your opinions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Template:Current WWE Champions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Template:Current TNA Champions. Nickag989talk 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Okay, there are two issues that plague our project more than others. It's the use of an ampersand (&) when talking about a tag team matches or multi-man matches. The other is people not spelling state names. The just put Las Vegas, NV rather than Las Vegas, Nevada. We need to work on fixing these issues, both are unencyclopedic and look horrible when reading an article. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 19:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been writing out the states in every championship article I do. It is the WWE articles that do it and people will refuse to spell it out. I tried one time. People don't like change.--WillC 06:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Using abbreviations for states in charts is fine. Keeps it briefer, and is actually quite often used professionally in all sorts of publications. That said, running body text should spell out states. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations doesn't have anything about states. Just countries and objects. Abbreviating doesn't solve anything or save anything. It is done just cause and no one ever questioned it at all. No one has any idea why it is done.--WillC 23:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm completely fine with it in tables. It's just in the body of the article that drives me nuts. I think we need to set some kind of guideline about ti in the body of the articles. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Moves and deletions

There are some ongoing deletions that have been relisted, or will be relisted, due to inadequate input. Among these are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Rhyno, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom (2nd nomination). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IWRG_Máscara_vs._Máscara_(August_2016) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) are also being discussed.

Requested moves at: WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) to WWE Women's Championship, Big E Langston to Big E (wrestler) and Rhino (wrestler) to Rhyno.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Giant, Magic Mohawk and Leader of the Altitude Era are probably the last of the redirects going to RfD, see those at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Another move at Talk:Alexander Rusev#Requested move 23 September 2016. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bret Hart biase accusation, request for input from other editors.

There's a big disagreement on the Bret Hart talk page about the Bret Hart article's lead section. One editor believes that the lead section gives Hart too much credit, isn't objective and that the sources aren't enough. Could some other people please add some input? We seem to be going nowhere right now.*Treker (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who kicked off the dispute was recently trying to force uncited hero worship into Eddie Guerrero. After failing to find sources supporting his desired hagiography and having it gutted, he seems to have turned to revenge editing. His angle is that we cannot use a WP:RS (in this case IGN, a reputable entertainment site with a dedicated wrestling section) to support consensus opinion regarding Hart's impact on the business and must state that we're giving only the cited publication's opinion. What he's not grasping (or choosing to ignore) is that the site's opinion is NOT being used: we're using its article as an RS to support consensus opinion. Since the beginning of time here on Wiki, we've used reliable sources to support consensus opinion on films, albums, books and everything else, so I see nothing wrong with the article. Warlock82 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page, I'm simply advocating the manual of style. My angle is that WP:PEACOCK should be favored here by quoting and linking the claim to the source directly. One journalist opinion from IGN or even all of us here agreeing can't constitute proof for validating a claim like "Hart changed the perception of mainstream pro-wrestling" in a lead. Quoting the article, on the other hand, with something like "according to IGN, Bret Hart did this and that", looks like a factual representation of what's been said about Hart and to me it should be favored here. I'm still failing to realize what's actually wrong with my edit, because even in Eddie Guerrero's case this was the format chosen in the end (read: "according to Fox News, Guerrero was one of the ring greats"... and then it was dropped to a renewed "Legacy" section two or three days after with no one, me included, complaining). It's like reporting the simple fact that it was said by IGN is supposd to overall diminish Hart's value.

As a mere reader, I'd like to bring everyone's attention on something. A lot, and I mean a lot, of pro-wrestling articles (from Hulk Hogan to Junkyard Dog) on some of the great names of the industry have been becoming increasingly loaded with puffery in the lead, with generally a very volatile policy about what's a good/relevant source and what's an actually verifiable claim, with small groups of dedicated editors acting as arbitrators about who is being a wrestler deserving of aforementioned puffery and who is not. With puffery I'm referring to stuff like:

  • Adam is widely regarded as one of the greatest/best (quote = another wrestler or journalist that says that "Adam is widely regarded as" in one article).
  • Adam revolutionized this and that (quote = medium like an internet article when journalist A says "Adam revolutionized this and that").
  • Adam would go on to become one of the finest performers of this or that decade
  • Adam was one of the premiere stars of this or that period

Some of the above are usually unsourced or do not specify the source as well. You can find quite a bunch of them simply by scrolling Warlock82's own contribution feed (not wanting to point fingers, just to give people an idea). On smaller scale, you have objectively reported stuff used as a slight-medium added flavor (which - while factual - mostly would make someone raise the question: why is this guy quoted here and not someone else? Why is it given so much weight?) like:

  • Wrestler X, or industry veteran Y said about wrestler Z that he's really good (which is at least acceptable per WP).

Again, except for the very last, this all looks like in more or less apparent contradiction with the WP:PEACOCK which says one should reword things by letting facts speak for themselves (i.e. Adam was a six-time champion a recordman, main evented three WrestleManias and worked in all the major promotions in North America) - and honestly, in the twelve years I've been reading Wikipedia, it looked like it was always like that up until very recently when these peacock terms started to fill the articles. FA like CM Punk's (who has been very well-received in the popularity department as well) pretty much respect the criteria I have in mind, while the articles I found some problems with above are usually C-class and open to editing, but can't be ever-so-slightly touched without starting a war. Doesn't someone believe that the general guideline should be revised to keep the most important facts (titles won, federations the guy worked in, length of their wrestling shtick) and leave out the embellishments to be as neutral as possible and avoid people bickering on what should go in the lead and what not? Because I believe this is bound to get out of hand sooner or later. 151.57.66.224 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be for the best if you do not spam the same long poorly formatted posts across several pages. Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to be more careful with the format. I'm only trying to give out what I think may be some constructive criticism here, there's no ill intent of "spamming" just as much there's no intent of "worshipping" anyone in particular on my part. 151.47.129.132 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Pay-per-view taglines

I noticed that the tagline for WWE Clash of Champions was recently removed, and there is a semi-protected edit request at No Mercy (2016) to add the tagline "There Will Be No Mercy". Are we doing away with taglines, or do we need a reliable source? JTP (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stable and tag team categories

I was looking on Karl Anderson and Luke Gallows's article and In see they are in the ROH, GFW, and NJPW stable and tag team categories. Shouldn't it be for current stables and tag teams? Or would have an alumni category for that be redundant and not needed? Just wanting clarification. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It is for all, not just current.  MPJ-DK  15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, bifurcating categories according to current and former circumstances or status is highly discouraged. Any exceptions which exist have likely either already been vetted or haven't been vetted because they slipped through the cracks and haven't yet been identified. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Heath Slater and Rhyno

I see no article on them has been created. I could start one on my sandbox until it is ready to be moved to its namespace. That is unless someone else has. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Was just deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Rhyno. Best to keep in the sandbox and reassess in a few months.LM2000 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

New title RMs

There are ongoing move requests on Talk:WWE Raw Women's Championship, Talk:WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship and Talk:WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. All of these involve dropping "WWE" from their title.LM2000 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hell the first two should not even have the name "Raw" in them, there is no way that's the "common name" after one show.  MPJ-DK  22:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WWE officially renamed them to include Raw. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
At this moment, the evidence for that is still retty slim. Str1977 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
"The title was renamed the Raw Women’s Championship following the 2016 WWE Brand Extension Draft." from WWE.com. Raw's Tag Team title says the same thing (except replacing "Women's" with "Tag Team"). --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree, User:MPJ-DK. It is another case of the current outbreak of WP:TOOSOONism on wrestling articles. However, it is just as important to not let it degrade any further. Also, what I think is worse than insert "Raw" in these titles' name is the all to prevalent urge of some to mention the supposed the name change in other articles (such as the SmackDown title articles). Maybe you could chime in. Str1977 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) back to WWE Women's Championship since the original title was more known by that name than the current Raw title was?LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Both have been known by the name, making it ambiguous no matter what. It needs a disambiguator. The dates work for that. oknazevad (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, as I see yet another attempt to give undue weight to recent events. However, the real reason why I came here was this passage in the article: "On September 18, 1956, The Fabulous Moolah became the inaugural Women's Champion as recognized by World Wrestling Entertainment". No, not really. I shouldn't have to explain that in 1956, there wasn't a World Wrestling Entertainment around to recognize anything, nor was there a World (Wide) Wrestling Federation. Whether the title was recognized by anyone else is a matter of question. From what I've seen, Moolah controlled the title and booked title matches herself. It may have been recognized by the NWA considering that she mostly worked in NWA territories. The women and midgets, just like Andre the Giant and the NWA world champion, traveled from territory to territory constantly because the nature of the business didn't favor them staying put in one place very long. Moolah would occasionally appear on W(W)WF shows, mostly after athletic commission bans on women wrestlers were lifted. She only became more than an occasional presence in the WWF via the 1984/5 angles leading up to her dropping the title to Wendi Richter. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
WWE Women's Championship redirects to the Raw Championship. Can this at least be turned into a dab page since there's no way it's the primary topic and it no longer goes by that name?LM2000 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think 1) WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) move back to WWE Women's Championship. The New title shared name, but right now, It's WWE Raw Women's Championship. Even the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) was named WWE Tag Team Championship for a few months. 2) WWE Women's Championship, a disambiguation page to the original title, the raw title and the SD title (even the Divas title). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of them should move (as I said), but turning the redirect into a disambiguation page makes sense. Same for the tag titles. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
RM at Talk:WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010)#Requested move 16 September 2016.LM2000 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I closed the RM and retargeted WWE Women's Championship into a dab page. Should we link to the dab page at the top of each related article rather than specifically link each in the hatnote?LM2000 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I think I'd also put the Divas title with the others. The name may not have been quite the same, but the purpose was the same, and it was often described informally as "WWE's women's championship" (not the generic noun, though), so it should probably be listed with the other three. oknazevad (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As a follow up, now that we've come that, we should also do the same for the tag titles, including the current Raw and SmackDown ones, as well as the former world tag titles and the long-defunct US Tag Titles (which were their original tag titles from even before the world tag titles; in fact they predated the WWWF World Championship) and also put in the women's tag titles as a see also. I think I'll do that now. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I've created WWE World Championship (disambiguation). It may be useful somewhere.LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to archive important things

I archived RVD's wwe.com profile because it says he won the European Championship (the title history doesn't list him). So I archived it and got this ugly thing: http://www.webcitation.org/6l56YLdzH

Why is the archived page all messed up? Did I do something wrong?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like WebCite's parser has difficulty with wwe.com's layout. Not you, but them. The text is in tact, if incorrectly rendered, so it's still valid as a citation. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

So there's nothing I can do about it? And how do we know if this is a real copy of wwe.com and not some fake site? I know I archived the real deal, but how do others know? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For the former, can't say if there is. As for the latter question, that's a question that governs all use of archive links, not just WWE. oknazevad (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It says in the top corner "Showing WebCite for URL: http://www.wwe.com/superstars/rob-van-dam", so it shows the original url. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you prefer webcitation or webarchive? I am currently archiving everything important about title histories with webcitation.orgWrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

PWG World Championship

@Vjmlhds: keeps removing it from the A.J. Styles article. Yet the title is a world championship. (See: PWG World Championship.) (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 19:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

PWG is a different animal than WWE, TNA, ROH, and NJPW - those promotions have national TV deals, PPV shows, and frequently travel abroad. PWG is an indy that barely leaves LA, has no TV or PPV. You can't equate them with WWE and the rest. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, ROH's is a syndication deal through Sinclair Broadcasting affiliates. They're not on a national network. Most likely not all Sinclair affiliates air ROH. So, calling it a "national tv deal" is a bit much. Also, PWG has held a show in Germany, then in England, and that was when the title became known as the PWG World Championship. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
ROH currently also has a deal for Comet (TV network), and has in the past had deals on Destination America and what was then HDNet (now AXS TV), so they most certainly have had national TV deals.
Also, did PWG run those shows in Europe, or did they have a couple of guys appear on another promotions card and defend the title as part of a cross-promotion deal. The former gives them an actual international presence, the latter is as common in the indies as rain. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
For Oknazevad, per the PWG World Championship article:

The title became known under its current name in February 2006, when PWG had a two-event European Vacation tour stopping in Essen, Germany and Orpington, England. The title has also been defended in Japan in the Dragon Gate promotion, as well as in the United Kingdom in 1PW and again on PWG's European Vacation II tour in Paris, France, Portsmouth, England and Essen, Germany. The title was later defended by Chris Hero in Queensland, Australia on two occasions.[1]

  1. ^ "Chris Hero's first reign". Pro Wrestling Guerrilla.com. Retrieved 2016-09-03.
I think the first sentence answers your question. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, note, they had national tv deals, they can go from national back down to non-national. The one with DA was a trial run and ended after what, a month? Also, HDNet wasn't national at the time, not sure if it still is, technically speaking also, Comet's not exactly national. But, whatever. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, ROH still tours quite extensively around the entire country, and even the world; they're in England in November, not to mention their working agreements with NJPW and CMLL that put ROH-contracted guys on Japanese and Mexican shows somewhat frequently. Contrast this with PWG, which did two shows ten years ago and hasn't left Southern California since, plus has never had a national TV deal at all. Is ROH as large as WWE? Is TNA? Of course not, nothing is. But the two of them are comparable to each other in many ways. PWG is not, it's just a fairly prominent Indy from Southern California. It's closer to Evolve or Chikara. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

According to a previous discussion, we don't decide the world title. Wrestling hasn't a real goverment body who discuss that titles are world titles. PWG says the PWG is a World title, it's a World title. Every other discussion (TV, national exposure...) it's OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Now see, growing up, I grew up with this "crazy" thinking that a World title had to occasionally be defended around the world. Something the PWG title, has. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not remove the sentence entirely? I honestly hate everything about it. First of all, AJ held the PWG Championship in 2005, it became the PWG World Championship in 2006. The syntax is off, this sentence comes before PWG or the PWG World Championship are even mentioned. Also, I've always been against the lede just being a readout of the Championships and accomplishments section, there's a section for that. Most of these championships are already mentioned elsewhere in the lede, I don't think we need to summarize again and do a tally count.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I've never thought of it that way, LM....I say go with LM2000's idea!!! (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with LM2000. I gringe everytime I see the "so and so has held this many world championships" in ledes since any promotion, no matter how small or insignificant, can declare their top title a world championship. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 02:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think an brief overview of championships can be useful in the lead, but I strongly disagree with including a statement like "... time world champion" for this exact reason. HHH Pedigree is right on. We don't set criteria for world championships. Promotions can call their titles a "world championship", and it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to dispute their claim. Removing statements about "... time world champion" and replacing them with something more meaningful seems to be the way to go. In the case of A.J. Styles, the lead already has a decent rundown of his accomplishments without the sentence in question. For an article like Bret Hart's, I would take "He is a seven-time world champion, having held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice" and trim it to "He held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice." This also gets around the dispute that crops up from time to time about whether the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship, by claiming to represent an area larger than the world, is therefore also a world championship. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I add one thing to the lead and this is the result. Strange.--WillC 03:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree with LM. It's the best solution. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Also agree. Keep the OR out. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm coming into this a bit late, sorry. So when late-1980s Stampede started calling its main title a world title because they started running shows in Montana, that's something I'm supposed to automatically take at face value and accept? I think I've already mentioned the hypothetical example of a wrestler defending a championship out of a former bowling alley in Parma, Ohio (don't laugh, the original NWF started out taping TV at the WUAB studios, which was precisely that) who then starts calling himself a world champ because he traveled "across the pond" to defend his title in a Toronto suburb. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The man has defended the title in two countries has he not? Is the title misleading in some way?--WillC 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Owen Hart edit war. Request for comment

Another editor disagreed with me on article content. Is now pissed off and removing relevant content from article lead for no reason. Would like for someone else to chim, I feel like the original disscussion has been lost.*Treker (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm removing lede content for the reason I told you: it uses Wikipedia as a citation (massive WP:RS fail), and repeats esoteric detail that is given multiple times throughout the body of the article. The lede is supposed to "summarize the most important points" per WP:LEAD, not give a laundry list of titles (including defunct and non-US ones) and Meltzer star ratings that mean nothing to casual readers. Please put your ego aside and work to the betterment of the encyclopedia instead of trying to "defeat" me. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:AC9E:3F04:A327:23A8 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the IP's version is an improvement. We do quote Meltzer and others in ledes when they summarize a career (see Chris Benoit for example), I do not think the one five star match is a good example, nor do I think his headlining of In Your House PPVs illustrates why he is notable. Regarding USWA's world title status, we had a similar discussion at #PWG World Championship early this month and decided to not explicitly tally world titles in AJ Styles' lede. While I do not support listing the C&A section in the lede, the one improvement I would suggest is to include some of his WWF championships as he's more notable for holding them than the USWA title.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A few concerns here: (1) Edit summaries in this dispute accusing the other of vandalism. Stop that immediately. (2) Going straight to edit warring rather than discussing proposed changes. (3) While Wikipedia articles were listed in the references, this is more an issue of improper formatting, as they would have been fine as a footnote. (4) Way too much detail in the lead. The In Your House stuff wasn't overly significant. (5) I would support the removal of the USWA championship from the lead. If someone asked me for the highlights of Hart's career and an explanation of his significance, I would not mention the USWA. (5) Five-star matches mean something to very few people. (6) That claim about being considered one of the greatest of all time is probably the worst offense in the article. It's sourced to an article that lists him as the 33rd best wrestler of the 1990s. The article does state that he is considered by his peers to be one of the best of all time, but there is no evidence in the single sentence written about Hart. We also need to keep in mind this is from Crave Online, which is just another pop culture click bait atrocity (at the bottom of the story, I'm invited to read "A Woman Had To Have Her Vibrator Surgically Removed From Inside Of Her After It Got Stuck"). It's written by the esteemed Rob Fee, who also contributes such masterpieces as "Pokémon Go VS. Zombie Apocalypse: A Venn Diagram". If Hart's peers truly feel this way, it's got to be reported somewhere better than Crave Online. (7) Missed in all of the bickering, a vandal added the word "screaming" to the statement that Hart fell to his death, but this was missed because people were focused solely on arguing about the lead. I agree that it needs to be redone, but let's do it with some legitimate dicussion about the highlights of his life and career, and let's stop with the edit warring and name calling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd disagree only on the USWA title. Back then it was co-promoted by the WWF, and a world title is a world title. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:91BB:A27F:D376:4B99 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't get the addition of "perhaps" to the mention that Hart's most notable appearances were with WWE. It's obvious that they were, and adding "perhaps" just reads like someone has an anti-McMahon Monopoly bias. In fact, I'd take out any subjective judgment statements and just list the promotions. People will be able to tell from the article where he had the most notable and successful appearances. I continue to disagree about the significance of the USWA Championship in a brief overview of Hart's career. A world title is not a world title. If it was then Todd Champion would be remembered as a former world champion. Instead, he's remembered, along with Firebreaker Chip, as one half of The Patriots hailing from "WCW Special Forces". And I won't even get into other champions like Snowman or The Dragon Master. Regardless of a partnership with the WWF, the title (essentially a Jerry Lawler vanity project) was never a huge deal in the wrestling world and is not one of the most significant aspects of Hart's life. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
"adding 'perhaps' just reads like someone has an anti-McMahon Monopoly bias"
It's unprovable that Hart's WWF run is his most notable. Saying he's best known for his WWF tenure is opinion, and I tried to ease it. I agree with your suggestion to just list the promotions in which he performed.
A world title is not a world title. If it was then Todd Champion would be remembered..."
Let's allow the facts to speak for themselves, rather than introducing subjective opinion. 188.223.204.38 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. I think taking a look at a book like Biographical Dictionary of Wrestling by Harris M. Lentz III is revealing: Owen Hart's article has two sentences of general statements, two sentences about his time with Stampede, one sentence about his championship in USWA, and 17 sentences about his time in the WWF. Likewise, the description for Martha Hart's Broken Harts book is "Owen's wife Martha, tells the story of their life together from the days as high school sweethearts, through Owen's rise to fame in the WWF." I think, even if we don't take common sense into consideration, the evidence is there that he is most notable for his time in the WWF. I think just listing promotions is best, but if we are to keep a useless "most notable" claim in, it can be done with the "perhaps". As for your comment about excluding subjective opinion, you have done the very opposite in your "it's important because it was co-promoted with the WWF" statement. Likewise, your interpretation of a world title as a world title ends up as subjective as my opinion that not all world titles are created equally. I'm not going to lose sleep over the USWA statement, but I disagree with your assessment of its notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
"As for your comment about excluding subjective opinion, you have done the very opposite in your 'it's important because it was co-promoted with the WWF' statement"
I acquiesced to the emerging consensus that what happened during his WWF tenure is most important: he won the USWA strap while contracted to the WWF, during a co-promotion. To outright discount the USWA Unified World Heavyweight Championship as world title, I see as bold. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:5171:3E0D:A33F:D673 (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
As indicated in the recent discussion about the PWG World Championship, anyone can slap the word "World" onto their title. Don't get me wrong--I liked the USWA, but the fact remains that 93% of their World Heavyweight Championship title changes took place in the same city (62 out of 67--in fact, the combined population of three of the other "world"ly locations have a combined population under 20,000). And I certainly don't consider Jerry Lawler a 30-time world champion. If the USWA title mention stays in the lead, it stays. I don't agree with the reasons given, but I'm not going to remove the statement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

NXT as a 3rd brand

WWE considers NXT as a third brand, complimenting both Raw and SmackDown. HHH just came right out and said so himself.

I mean really, when the guy who oversees the brand and is a top executive in the entire company classifies NXT as a third brand, that's pretty much definitive to me. This isn't some smark in his mother's basement on his blog saying this...it's freaking HHH - the guy WHO RUNS THE PLACE!

Not seeing the issue here.

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Welll, HHH says NXT is the 3rd brand. However, it's not a main roster brand. But, what happened? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, HHH (Levesque, not the editor here) is trying to promote NXT, so what he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, as our HHH (dang confusing) notes, NXT is not main roster, and not a third co-equal brand to Raw and SmackDown. That's just a fact, obvious from a) the lack of non-WWE Network TV time b) the smaller venues for most of their shows (outside of a few majors), c) the use of a TV studio for tapings (as opposed to full arenas for live airings) and d) the continued use of terms like "call up" by even WWE themselves to describe moves from the NXT roster to the Raw or SD roster. My concern with the edit at WWE itself is that it overstates NXT as being equal, when it is intentionally not. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Raw, SD, and NXT are all WWE property. So if they consider them all as brands, then their word is law, since they own the pop stand. Now Raw and SD are by appearance and presentation bigger brands than NXT, but NXT has it's own place in the world, and WWE considers it a brand under their banner. There's nothing in the WWE article that says that the brands are equal, just merely brands that WWE promotes under - I mean if you wanted to really pick nits, you could say SD =/= Raw because Raw is 3 hours and has 5 titles, while SD is 2 hours and has 4 titles. There are 3 brands, some get more exposure than others and have more visibility, but they are all brands under the WWE umbrella that put on cards. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Trips may be using promotional semantics but it's still the developmental branch and we should still be listing WWE NXT separately in the C&A section.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's an article from ABC News calling NXT a "developmental third brand". Again the issue isn't rather NXT is an "equal" brand to Raw or SmackDown, but merely rather it's considered a third brand promoted under the WWE umbrella. Here is an unbiased source using the phrase "third brand" to describe NXT. Again, this isn't about rather one brand is "equal" to another, but simply rather NXT is considered simply AS a brand under the WWE banner, which it clearly is. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's an article from Daily DDT talking about how NXT has taken on a life of it's own and how it differentiates from Raw and SD. Again, it describes NXT as a third brand under the WWE banner (comparing it to ECW). Don't get hung up on rather it's "equal" to the other two, the question is is NXT a third brand under the WWE umbrella, and the answer is yes. The function of the brand isn't important as is the meat and potatoes question of IS IT A BRAND?, Yes it is. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So.... what the heck does it matter that it's "a brand" I don't get this whole argument - what are you guys quibbling over here?  MPJ-DK  02:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about "how" it's classified - My sole point is that Raw, SmackDown, and NXT are all brands under the WWE banner, and Oknazevad (the editor who has the biggest issue with this) has a hang up about if NXT is "equal" to Raw and SD. My point is that it doesn't matter if one brand is bigger than the other, simply that it's a brand - period. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's an article from Wrestle Zone where Jim Ross calls NXT WWE's third brand. JR doesn't work for WWE, and he's not trying to promote anything. The issue isn't about the FUNCTION of the brand - merely is it a brand under the WWE banner...the answer is yes. NXT is a third distinct brand promoted by WWE. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the significance of this to be honest. The "brand" argument was used when this was discussed to death last time around. It can be a brand and still be a developmental branch, which ABC News points out.LM2000 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic on the NXT as a brand thing (which honestly confuses me), but Vjmlhds, I noticed you combined "WWE" and "WWE NXT" in the C&A sections on several pages. From what I know, they have always been separate, shouldn't we reach consensus on this before changing? Sekyaw (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
NXT is part of WWE. There is no need for it to be listed as it's own entity. With Raw and SD as separate brands, and NXT (for all intents and purposes) being a third brand, it just makes things easier to put it all under the WWE heading since at the end of the day, it's all one company. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
LM2000 Big difference between last year and this year is that WWE has reestablished the brand extension, dividing Raw and SD into their own little worlds. NXT is also it's own little world. WWE has 3 touring companies when it comes down to it - Raw, SD, and NXT. The view of NXT has changed in a year. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not merge "WWE" and "WWE NXT" until you reach consensus. There had been a large debate in September 2015 about this. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. JC · Talk · Contributions 19:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Everyone just needs to learn that the word brand is a business word. Powerade is a "brand" of Coke. It is not the same as Coca-Cola. It is not even considered in the same league as Coke by that very company but it is still a brand of coke. When they talk about NXT being a brand. It is. It is a brand of wrestling offered by the company. Is it part of the WWE brand extension? No. Because obviously it didn't get a pick in the draft. It was used as a brand in which the main two took talent from it. Some take this word brand as too literal. All a brand is, is a subsidiary or a style/type of something. TNA, ROH, NJPW, etc are all brands of wrestling.--WillC 05:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to add to the consensus that NXT is not a 'brand' in the same way as Raw and Smackdown and should be kept separate in the C&A section. I also believe it should be kept separate in the PPV/'network event' infoxbox chronology but that's a different issue. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Camacho ~> Tanga Roa. PLEASE PARTICIPATE

Requested move 14 October 2016

talk:Camacho (wrestler) -> Tanga Roa

2A02:C7D:3B50:2400:8117:41BF:E063:3D4E (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Lucha Underground spoilers

Can someone please explain to me who thought it was a good idea include Lucha Underground spoilers on Wikipedia pages? That's makes it impossible for someone to look up LU or their stars without spoiling everything from themselves. It's extremely frustrating and seems counter intuitive to what Wikipedia is for.

If someone had leaked the Star Wars: The Force Awakens script before it premiered, would have added the plot and all its spoilers to its Wikipedia page?

And don't argue that they're different because LU is produced like a TV show, not a traditional pro wrestling show. And I remember that SmackDown spoilers weren't allowed before. So I really don't understand this. 2600:1017:B02F:643D:8C9F:FE84:8B05:4C89 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER. It's typical to include results from taped shows that haven' aired yet.LM2000 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't help me at all. What about my analogy? If I had know the plot of TFA before it premiered via a leaked final script or leaked copy of the movie, would I be allowed to fill out the "plot" section with information about Han Solo being killed? What about character bios from TV shows? Abby Mills died at the end of Sleepy Hollow season 2. If I had known that and could cite a leaked script, would I be allowed to include her death in her character bio? 96.249.2.195 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If Han Solo's death was leaked and received as much coverage in WP:RS as wrestling tapings do then it would have been included in that article.LM2000 (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And, by the way, the SmackDown spoilers thing was dropped years ago. It's not just LU; TNA and ROH tapings results are also noted when major things like title changes happen. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Lucha Underground isn't a professional wrestling show, User:Oknazevad this was clarified at the beginning of the thread, this is your only warning before you're reported for trolling. Lucha Underground is a Television Drama about a Professional Wrestling company, they ARE NOT a wrestling company. The wrestling is handled by AAA, while the filming, post-production, promotion and release aren't handled by them. The amount of time from principal photography to air is in line with all other scripted shows so the fact we're spoiling it is asinine. Cheetoburrito (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't get to make an unsupported assertion, and then when called out in it claim trolling. Your insistence that "Lucha Underground is different" has been made and rejected here before. So don't show up out of nowhere and get all indignant when you are told the consensus is against you. In fact, I should drag you to ANI for the bad faith accusations. Get over yourself. oknazevad (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_98&oldid=1136048311"